Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:129992 Court No. - 33 Case :- WRIT - C No. - 23197 of 2025 Petitioner :- M/S Rashmi Metaliks Limited Respondent :- Assisrant Labour Commissioner Emplotees And 2 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Karshit Nigam,Sr. Advocate Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C. Hon'ble Prakash Padia,J. 1. Heard Shri S.S. Nigam, learned Senior Counsel assisted by Shri Karshit Nigam, learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Standing Counsel for the State- respondents. 2. The petitioner has preferred the present writ petition inter-alias with the following prayer:- "I. Issue a writ, order/ direction in the nature of certiorari quashing the order dated 26.03.2025, passed by the respondent no. 1 in E.C.A. Case No. 17 of 2024 (Smt. Sarita Devi & Others vs. M/s Rashmi Metaliks Limited) (as contained Annexure-1 to this writ petition). II. Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of suitable nature staying the further proceedings of E.C.A. Case No. 17 of 2024 (Smt. Sarita Devi & others Vs. M/s Rashmi Metaliks Limited) during the pendency of the instant writ petition." 3. It is argued by the counsel for the petitioner that order passed by the Respondent No. 1 namely Assistant Labour Commissioner/ Employees Compensation Commissioner, Shahjahanpur dated 26.03.2025 is complete violation of the law laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of National Insurance Co. Ltd. vs. Hamida Khatoon & others decided on 06th May, 2009, Civil Appeal No. 3324 of 2009 (Arising out of SLP (C) No. 5989 of 2003). He placed reliance upon the paragraph 12 of the aforesaid judgment which reads as follows:- "12. When considered in the background of statutory provisions, noted above, the payment or non-payment of contributions and action or non-action prior to or subsequent to the date of accident is really inconsequential. The deceased employee was clearly an "insured person", as defined in the Act. As the deceased employee has suffered an employment injury as defined under Section 2(8) of the Act and there is no dispute that he was in employment of the employer, by operation of Section 53 of the Act, proceedings under the Compensation Act were excluded statutorily. The High Court was not justified in holding otherwise. We find that the Corporation has filed an affidavit indicating that the benefits under the Act shall be extended to the persons entitled under the Act. The benefits shall be worked out by the Corporation and shall be extended to the eligible persons." 4. It is further argued that the proceedings pending before the Respondent No. 1 is not be permitted to continue in view of the absolute bar as contained under Section 53 of the Employees' State Insurance Act, 1948. He also placed reliance upon the law laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Srinivasa Rice Mills vs. ESI Corporation reported in SCC 2007 (1) 705. 5. Heard counsel for the petitioner and learned Standing Counsel for the State- respondents. 6. In view of the order proposed to be passed today, notices need not be issued to the respondent nos. 2 & 3. 7. In the facts and circumstances of the case and also in the interest of justice, the present writ petition is disposed of finally permitting the petitioner to raise all his objections before the Respondent No. 1 namely Assistant Labour Commissioner/ Employees Compensation Commissioner, Shahjahanpur by filing a fresh application within a period of three weeks from today. If it is so, the Respondent No. 1 is directed to pass appropriate orders on the same after considering all the relevant aspect of the matter as has been raised, expeditiously after providing an opportunity of hearing to all the parties concerned, unless there is no legal impediment. Order Date :- 4.8.2025 Swati Digitally signed by :- SWATI PATHAK High Court of Judicature at Allahabad Digitally signed by :- SWATI PATHAK High Court of Judicature at Allahabad