WP(C) 5824/2010 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE BP KATAKEY The petitioners, by the present petition, have challenged the orders dated 9.7.2 010, 6.9.2010 and 13.9.2010 issued by the Deputy Director, authorized Officer an d Recovery Officer, respectively, of Employees State Insurance Corporation apart from praying for a direction to the respondents Corporation to determine the co ntribution payable by the petitioner Company under the provisions of the Employe es State Insurance Act (for short the ’Act’) for the period from May 2005 to Mar ch 2007 after giving reasonable opportunity of being heard and in accordance wit h the provision of the said Act. By order dated 9.7.2010, passed in exercise of the power conferred under Section 45A of the Act an amount of Rs. 44,87,829/- was determined as the contribution payable by the petitioners for the period from May 2005 to March 2007 with a fur ther direction to pay the said amount within 15 days from the date of passing of the said order failing which recoverable as per Section 45C of the said Act. By order dated 6.9.2010 the authorized Officer of the Employees State Insurance Corporation directed the Recovery Officer to recover the aforesaid amount along with interest totaling to 53,98,182/-. The Recovery Officer thereafter vide orde r dated 13.9.2010 informed the petitioners about issuance of the certificate for recovery of the aforesaid amount and also about the demand notice. I have heard Mr. DK Misra, learned senior counsel for the petitioners and Mr. Na ndy, learned counsel appearing for the respondents. The ground on which the aforesaid orders are put to challenge by the petitioners in the present writ petition is basically denial of the reasonable opportunity of being heard and non compliance of the provision of the Act relating to the in spection and not giving opportunity to produce the relevant documents including the registers maintained by the petitioners. According to the petitioners on the date when those orders were issued the third inspection to ascertain the amount of contribution payable by the petitioners pertaining to the aforesaid period f rom May 2005 to March 2007 having been on, the respondent Corporation could not have issued the demand notice, more so when the petitioners have produced all th e required documents and registers before the inspecting Officer appointed under the provision of the Act. On the other hand the respondents pleaded that such demand notice as well as the impugned orders were passed on the basis of the inspection report of the inspec ting staff appointed under the provision of the Act and on failure of the petiti oners to produce all the required documents/registers despite giving several opp ortunities for that purpose. To appreciate the rival contentions relating to continuance of the third inspect ion at the time of issuance of the demand notice and passing of the aforesaid or ders the relevant records were perused. The records as produced by the learned counsel for the respondents reveal that t he Insurance Inspector on 21.5.2010 gave a notice to the petitioner No. 1 fixing 16.6.2010 for inspection under Section 45 of the Act and directed the petitione rs to produce all the relevant documents pertaining to the employment, payment o f wages and payment of contribution under the said Act apart from the books of a ccounts for the aforesaid period namely May 2005 to March 2007. The records furt her reveal the continuance of the said inspection at the time of issuance of the impugned orders. Section 45 of the Act provides for inspection of the premises of the establishme nt by Social Security Officer appointed by the Corporation. Section 45A provides that where in respect of factory or establishment no return s, particulars or records are submitted, furnished or maintained in accordance w ith the provisions of Section 44 or any Social Security Officer or other officia l of the Corporation was prevented in any manner by the principal or immediate e mployer or any other person in exercising his functions or discharging his dutie s under Section 45, the Corporation may on the basis of the information availabl e to it by order may determine the contribution of the amount payable in respect of the factory or establishment. The order under sub Section 1 of Section 45A, however, can be passed after giving the principal or the immediate employer in c harge of the factory or establishment reasonable opportunity of being heard. Suc h order cannot be passed by the Corporation in respect of the period beyond five years from the date on which such contribution shall become due. Section 45A(A) provides for an appeal by the employer before the appellate autho rity against the orders passed by the Corporation under Section 45A. Such appeal is to be filed before the appellate authority, as may be provided by the Regula tion, within 15 days of passing of the said order after depositing 25% of the co ntribution ordered to be paid or the contribution as per the own assessment of t he appellant, whichever is higher with the Corporation. In case the employer suc ceeds in the appeal the Corporation is duty bound to refund the amount so deposi ted by the employer together with such interest as may be specified therein. Section 45B provides that any contribution payable under the Act is to be recove red as arrear of land revenue. Section 45C provides for issuance of certificate to the Recovery Officer. Section 45D provides that the authorised Officer may fo rward the certificate issued under Section 45C to the Recovery Officer for recov ery of the amount from the principal or immediate employer. In the present case, the contribution payable by the petitioners has been determ ined under Section 45A. Admittedly, the appellate authority has not been provide d by the Regulation as required under Section 45A(A) of the Act, which came into force with effect from 1.6.2010. That being the position there is no alternativ e remedy available to the petitioners to challenge the order determining the con tribution payable under Section 45A of the Act except filing a writ petition bef ore this Court. As noticed above, according to the petitioners though the third inspection pursu ant to the request made by the petitioners was on, the order determining the con tribution under Section 45A was passed and the notice of demand was accordingly issued. But according to the respondent Corporation such determination was done under Section 45 because of the failure on the part of the petitioners to produc e all the relevant documents/registers etc. The records produced by the Corporation, as has been discussed above, reveal con tinuance of the inspection by the Social Security Officer (Inspecting Officer) a t the time of passing of the order under Section 45A, during which inspection, a ccording to the petitioners, all the relevant documents/registers were placed/pr oduced. Since the dispute is relating to giving adequate opportunity of producti on of the relevant records for inspection by the inspecting officer and the reco rds reveal continuance of inspection by the Inspecting Officer (Social Security Officer) at the time of passing the order under Section 45A, the present petitio n is disposed of directing the petitioners to produce all the relevant materials , documents/registers before the Social Security Officer of the Corporation on t he date to be fixed by the Social Security Officer, which shall be done within a period of six weeks from today. The said officer shall intimate the petitioners the documents/registers and accounts which are required to be inspected, keepin g in mind the records which have already been produced. The authority of the respondent Corporation thereafter shall pass necessary orde rs ascertaining the amount of contribution payable by the petitioners under the provision of the Act pertaining to the aforesaid period from May 2005 to March 2 007 and issue necessary demand notice for payment of the said amount by the peti tioners. It is needless to say that such determination of contribution payable by the pet itioners shall be on the basis of the documents to be produced by the petitioner s, in the event such documents/records/registers are produced or in terms of the provision contained under Section 45A of the Act. Rejecting the contention of the learned senior counsel for the petitioners that according to the calculations made by the petitioners only an amount of Rs. 15,0 00/- is payable towards the contribution under the provision of the Act, the pet itioners, as required under Section 45 A(A) of the Act, are directed to deposit 25% of the amount determined by the Deputy Director vide order dated 9.7.2010 un der Section 45A of the Act either in cash or by way of Bank draft with the Corpo ration, within 6(six) weeks, who shall issue valid receipt therefor. In case the amount to be assessed is found to be lower than the amount deposited by the petitioners, pursuant to the order passed today, the balance of the amou nt shall be refunded to the petitioners together with the interest at the rate a t which moneys are lend or advanced by nationalized banks in relation to commerc ial transaction. Such refund is to be made within one month from the date of pas sing of the order by the respondent Corporation determining the amount of contri bution payable by the petitioners. The writ petition is accordingly disposed of. No cost.