IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL Writ Petition (M/S) No. 1848 of 2011 M/s Durga Oil and Steel Works and two others. … Petitioners. Versus Employees State Insurance Corporation, Panchdeep Bhawan, Sarvodaya Nagar, Kanpur and two others … Respondents. Mr. Anant Kumar Agarwal, Advocate, learned counsel for the petitioners. Mr. C.K.Sharma, Advocate, learned counsel for the respondents. Date September 07, 2011. Hon’ble B.S.Verma, J. (Stay Application No. 9180 of 2011) Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. By means of this writ petition, the petitioners have sought a writ in the nature of certiorari quashing the impugned orders dated 24-5-2011 and 5-8-2011 passed by Employees’ Insurance Court/Civil Judge (Senior Division) Haridwar (for short the ESI Court) in Misc. Civil Case No. 2 of 1998, Durga Oil and Steel Works and others Vs. Employees State Insurance Corporation and others. By the order dated 24-5-2011 the opportunity of evidence to the plaintiff-petitioners was closed by the ESI court. By the order dated 5-8-2011, the ESI court has dismissed the application of the plaintiffs (paper no. 155-C) which was moved to recall the order dated 24-5-2011. The ESI Court also rejected the application of the plaintiffs-petitioners (paper no. 157-C) for taking the documents on records. The learned counsel for the respondents has submitted that this writ petition may be disposed of as on today itself without counter version of the respondents at the admission stage. According to the petitioners, a show cause notice was issued to the petitioner no.1 to show cause as to why the petitioner 2 no. 1 be not registered under the provisions of Employees State Insurance Act, 1948 (for short the Act) and a reply was submitted by the petitioner no. 1 to the respondents. However the respondent no. 1 appears to have issued a recovery certificate against the petitioners. Subsequent to it, the petitioner no. 1 filed an application under Sections 76/77 of the Act before the ESI court seeking declaration that the provisions of the Act are not applicable to the applicant firm, which has been registered as Civil Misc. Case No. 2 of 1998. On 24-5-2011, when the case was called out, the plaintiffs could not appear before the ESI court. The ESI court closed the opportunity of evidence of the plaintiffs by order dated 24-5-2011. Subsequently, the plaintiff-petitioners moved application (paper no. 155-C) to recall the order dated 24-5-2011 and they also moved another application (paper no. 157-C) for taking the documents filed along with a list on record. The application paper no. 155-C has been rejected on the ground that several opportunity was given to the plaintiffs to adduce evidence and the case is pending since 1998, but the plaintiffs failed to adduce their evidence. The application paper no. 157-C has been rejected on the ground that the plaintiffs have not filed the documents since 1998 despite sufficient opportunity given in that regard, therefore, there is no justification to allow the application. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents has submitted that the case is pending since the year 1998 and the petitioners, who are plaintiffs themselves are lingering on the proceedings of the case. The learned counsel for the plaintiff-petitioners has contended that the photocopies of the documents, which have been sought to be filed, are already on record and the original could not be filed for want of proper advice from the counsel, therefore, the plaintiffs filed application thereafter. 3 Learned counsel for the petitioners further submitted that both the parties have adduced their evidence by filing affidavits. The case was fixed on 24-5-2011 for cross-examination of the plaintiffs by the defendants. Only the cross-examination of the plaintiff is to be done by the defendant-respondents. Having heard the submissions of learned counsel for both the parties and having gone through the material placed before this Court, it would be in the fitness of things as well as in the interest of justice that the case is decided on merits by the ESI court. Moreover the photocopies of the documents are already on record and they are the correspondence made between both the parties. In this view of the matter, both the applications moved by the plaintiff-petitioners, namely paper nos. 155-C and 157-C before the ESI Court, deserve to be allowed subject to payment of cost and the order dated 24-5-2011 is liable to be recalled. Consequently, the writ petition deserves to be allowed. The writ petition is allowed. Both the applications moved by the plaintiffs-petitioners, paper no. 155-C and paper no. 157-C, before the ESI court are allowed subject to payment of cost of Rs. 500/- each to defendants. The total cost of Rs. 1000/-(one thousand) shall be deposited within a period of one week with the ESI Court by the petitioners and the plaintiff-petitioners shall remain present in the Court on 19-9-2011. On payment/deposit of the cost, the order dated 24-5-2011 passed by the ESI court shall stand recalled, the order dated 5-8-2011 shall stand set aside and the documents filed along with application 157-C would be taken on record. The plaintiffs shall not seek any adjournment on their behalf on the date fixed i.e. 19-9-2011. All pending applications stand disposed of. (B.S.Verma, J.) RCP 4