HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL Writ Petition (M/S) No. 1876 of 2025 M/s Gopal Ji Industrial Services …....Petitioner Versus Union of India and others .….Respondents Present:- Mr. Mukesh Kumar Kapruwan, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Atul Bhatt, Central Government Standing Counsel for the Union of India. Ms. Tanuj Talwar Shah, Advocate for the respondent nos. 2 and 3 Hon’ble Ravindra Maithani, J. (Oral) This challenge in this petition is made to the orders dated 29.11.2024, passed under Section 45A of the Employees State Insurance Act, 1948 (“the Act”) and order dated 27.02.2025 passed under Section 45AA of the Act. 2. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. 3. At the very outset, the Court wanted to know as to why the writ petition may be entertained in view of alternate efficacious remedy under Section 75 of the Act. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the order dated 29.11.2024 has been passed without affording an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner and in appeal under Section 45 AA of the Act, the petitioner was not afforded any opportunity of hearing and in defiance of the principles of natural justice the orders have been passed. 2 5. Learned counsel for the respondent nos. 2 and 3 submits that at the time of hearing of the matter, the petitioner was given an opportunity of personal hearing on 18.10.2024 and 25.11.2024, but he did not appear. She submits that in the order dated 29.11.2024 passed under Section 45A of the Act, this fact is mentioned. She also submits that soon thereafter, the petitioner was informed its right to appeal under Section 45 AA of the Act by a communication dated 31.12.2024, in which, it was categorically stated that the petitioner has to fulfil the requisites for filing the appeal. But, he failed to submit the appeal as per law, therefore, it has been rejected. She submits that the petitioner was afforded immense opportunities of hearing. 6. The petitioner, in fact, was afforded an opportunity of hearing when an order under Section 45A of the Act was passed. He did not appear on the date fixed. Thereafter, the petitioner was told as to how the appeal was to be filed. He failed to do so. Therefore, the appeal has been dismissed. Now, the petitioner has an alternate efficacious remedy in terms of approaching the Employees Insurance Court under Section 75 of the Act. 7. Since the petitioner has an alternate efficacious statutory remedy, the petition is rejected accordingly. (Ravindra Maithani, J) 21.07.2025 Jitendra