HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD LUCKNOW SPECIAL APPEAL No. - 414 of 2025 Court No. - 1 HON'BLE RAJAN ROY, J. HON'BLE RAJEEV BHARTI, J. 1. Heard. 2. After hearing the parties and perusing the records what comes out is that the writ petition was dismissed at the admission stage itself on the basis of the instructions received by Sri Shailendra Srivastava, learned counsel for the opposite parties, according to which, the return filed by the appellant-petitioner disclosed the contribution collected but not paid in the requisite account of Employees State Insurance Corporation in terms of the Employees State Insurance Act, 1948 (in short 'the Act, 1948'), therefore, based on the data provided by the employer, the Corporation proceeded to issue notice to the appellant-petitioner/ employer dated 24.07.2025 and thereafter, a recovery certificate was issued under Section 45-C to 45-I of the Act, 1948. However, learned counsel for the appellant says that in response to the notice dated 24.07.2025, a response was submitted by the appellant-petitioner that the data mentioned in the return was incorrect and therefore, it could not be the basis for issuance of the recovery certificate. This aspect of the matter has not been taken into consideration by the writ court. 3. We have perused the impugned judgment and find that actually this aspect has not been taken into consideration as to how far this plea is factually and/ or legally tenable and the writ petition has been dismissed Versus Counsel for Appellant(s) : Chandra Mohan, D.P. Dutt Tiwari Counsel for Respondent(s) : Sri Shailendra Srivastava M/S Aarohan Management Service Lko Thru. Prop. Sanjay Kumar Singh .....Appellant(s) Deputy Director Employees S.I.C. Sub Regional Office Lko And Another .....Respondent(s) on the ground that no dispute has been raised by any person against the information furnished by the employer, therefore, no order is required to be passed under Section 45A of the Act, 1948 and as the recovery certificate has been issued on the basis of the data disclosed by the employer himself, therefore, there was nothing wrong with it. Of course, we agree with learned Single Judge when he says that 45-A is attracted only in a case where in respect of factory or establishment no returns, particulars, registers or records are submitted furnished or maintained in accordance with the provisions of Section 44 or any social security officer or other officer of the Corporation referred to in sub-Section (2) of Section 45 is prevented in any manner by the principal or immediate employer or any person, in exercising his function or discharging his duties under Section 45. But this was a peculiar case where the employer was himself disputing the data filled by him in the return filed in the form of Register C-6. How far this plea was tenable is a different issue but at least this plea which was taken in response to the notice should have been considered by the writ court. We are, therefore, of the opinion that the petition should have been decided after considering the aforesaid plea and calling for a counter affidavit so that all the facts were before the Court and then the matter should have been considered in the light of the provisions of the Act, 1948 and Rules made thereunder etc. 4. In view of the above, without recording any opinion as to how far the plea taken by the appellant in his reply dated 16.09.2025 in response to the notice dated 24.07.2025 is tenable on facts and law as learned Single Judge has not considered this aspect, leaving it open for him rather requesting him to consider this aspect, we allow this appeal, quash the impugned judgment. Consequently, the writ petition stands restored to its original number and shall be listed before the writ court on 10.12.2025. 5. In the meantime, the opposite parties herein i.e. the Corporation shall file counter affidavit in the writ petition. 6. It is open for the appellant-petitioner to file supplementary pleadings before the writ court specifically indicating as to what was the correct data which should have been uploaded as, if it is not done, then it would be a question to be considered by the writ court as to how far this plea SPLA No. 414 of 2025 2 would be tenable in the absence of such data with requisite proof. Of course, the aspect as to whether the appellant-petitioner can resile from the data mentioned in Register C-6 filed in the form of return online and seek its correction or not can also be seen by learned Single Judge. November 26, 2025 Shanu/- SPLA No. 414 of 2025 3 (Rajeev Bharti,J.) (Rajan Roy,J.) Digitally signed by :- SHANU SUMAN High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench