C.W.P No.13500 of 1991 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH C.W.P No.13500 of 1991 Date of Decision: 06.07.2009 M/s Mahajan Industries, through its Managing Partner-cum-Occupier Sh. Yash Pal .......Petitioner Versus Employees State Insurance Corporation and others ....Respondents Present: Mr. Keshav Ketaraia, Advocate for Mr. Chetan Mittal, Sr. Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. B.S. Bhalla, Advocate for the respondents. CORAM:HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K. KANNAN 1. Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment ? 2. To be referred to the Reporters or not ? 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest ? -.- K. KANNAN J.(ORAL) 1. The order under challenge is the direction by the Deputy Regional Director acting on behalf of the Employees State Insurance Corporation to make a contribution to the tune of Rs.3254/- for the period from October 1988 to December, 1988 plus interest amounting to Rs.780 upto 19.05.1991. The order came to be passed on an objection taken by the industrial establishment that at the relevant time they did not have workmen exceeding 10 persons to be attracted to the provisions of the Act. The Deputy Regional Director rejected the contention on the ground that the factory was actually covered under ESI Act and the employer had neither made the compliance nor C.W.P No.13500 of 1991 -2- given any statement of accounts as per his own records. 2. The order is challenged before this Court on the ground that there was nothing to show that more than 10 employees/workmen had been employed at the relevant time and that further the person who passed the order did not have competence to pass such an order. Even before adverting to the contentions, it has to be pointed out that dispute relating to a liability to make contribution is a subject, which is covered under Section 75(a) of the ESI Act and any person who seeks to raise the dispute shall have the remedy only by instituting appropriate proceedings before the ESI Court, which is constituted for the said purpose. Chapter VI of the ESI Act which contains the relevant provisions also provides for appeal and reference against the order passed by the ESI Court. The resort to an application under Section 226 when there was an alternative remedy which was available under the ESI Act, was misplaced. The writ petition, therefore, fails and dismissed accordingly. (K. KANNAN) JUDGE July 06, 2009 Pankaj*