M/S CRESENT PUBLIC SCHOOL THRU. ITS MANAGER ABDUL WADOOD v. THE ASSISTANT DIRECTOR / AUTHORIZED OFFICER EMPLOYEES STATE INSURANCE CORPORATION AND ANOTHER
WRIC/3759/2025 · 2025-04-30
Pankaj Bhatia
body2025
DailyLaw.ai
[ 2025 DAILYLAW 135318 (ALL) · dailylaw.ai ]
DailyLaw.ai
[ 2025 DAILYLAW 135318 (ALL) · dailylaw.ai ]
Judgment text
Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.
Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC-LKO:24661 Court No. - 6 Case :- WRIT - C No. - 3759 of 2025 Petitioner :- M/S Cresent Public School Thru. Its Manager Abdul Wadood Respondent :- The Assistant Director / Authorized Officer Employees State Insurance Corporation And Another Counsel for Petitioner :- D.P. Dutt Tiwari Counsel for Respondent :- Shishir Pradhan Hon'ble Pankaj Bhatia,J.
1. Counter affidavit filed on behalf of respondents no.1 and 2 is taken on record.
2. Heard learned Counsel for the petitioner and Sri Shishir Pradhan, learned Counsel for the respondents.
3. The present petition has been filed by the petitioner challenging the order dated 29.02.2024 passed under Section 45-A of the Employees State Insurance Act, 1948 as well as the consequent recovery order dated 22.07.2024 as contained in Annexure-2 to the writ petition.
4. The contention of the Counsel for the petitioner is that no opportunity of hearing was granted prior to passing of the order under Section 45-A of the Act.
5. In view of the said submission, a counter affidavit was called for. In the counter affidavit, it has been stated that some survey was conducted in the year 2013, where the number of persons working were found to be 15 and thus the proceedings were initiated and despite sending so many notices, no reply has been submitted, as such, the order of suspension came to be passed.
6. From the material on record, it appears that the survey was conducted some time in the year 2013. There is no mention in the order under Section 45-A or in the consequent recovery
order with regard to the assessment and recovery of the dues for the period 2013-2018.
7. The Counsel for the petitioner states that no amount have ever been paid since 2013 as the number of employees working with the petitioner are about 8.
8. Considering the fact that in terms of the mandate of Section
45-A, an opportunity of hearing is mandatory. There being contradiction and no material to suggest that as to why the proceedings were not initiated from the year 2013, in the interest of justice an orders impugned dated 29.02.2024 and 22.07.2024 are quashed.
9. The matter is remanded to the respondent authority to pass fresh order after affording opportunity of hearing and providing all the materials that may have been collected against the petitioner.
10. To avoid any further delay, the petitioner shall appear before the respondent no.1 at about 12.05.2025 at about 12:00 noon and submit a reply. In case, the petitioner appears and submits reply, the respondent no.1 shall thereafter proceed to pass order in accordance with law and the directions issued hereinabove.
Order Date :- 30.4.2025 akverma Digitally signed by :- ASHOK KUMAR VERMA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench