-: 1 :- IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.289 OF 2008 Seth Industries Private Limited & Anr. : Petitioners V/s. The State of Maharashtra & Ors. : Respondents ... Mr.C.U.Singh, Senior Advocate, with Mr.Anurag Gokhale i/b. Mr.Madhukar Harmwar for the petitioners. Mr.P.M.Palshikar for respondent no.2. ... CORAM : S.B.MHASE & A.A.KUMBHAKONI,JJ. DATE : JUNE 12, 2008. P.C. 1. Mr.Singh, the learned counsel for the petitioners, argued for some time and ultimately, submitted that earlier, the ESI authorities have decided the claims as against the Directors, but this Court has set aside the said order having found that the order should have been against the company and not its Director. That was a technical aspect. Now, he states that the company should be given hearing. 2. In fact, what we find is that the correctness of the claim should have been disputed in the earlier petition by -: 2 :- the Directors. They did not raise dispute in that regard at that time and, therefore, we are of the prima facie view that such an opportunity as sought by the petitioners cannot be afforded to the company. 3. Ultimately, when we expressed this view, the learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the petitioners are ready to deposit 50% of the amount in issue. On the other hand, However, the learned counsel for the respondent no.2 submitted that the amount in issue is due from 1976 onwards and, therefore, the petitioners should be directed to deposit the total amount of Rs.91,56,441/-. 4. Then ultimately, Mr.Singh submitted that he will deposit Rs.15,41,905/- which is the principal amount and Rs.54,38,395/- which is the amount of interest. This means that except the amount of damages, the petitioners have shown their willingness to deposit rest of the amount i.e. Rs.69,80,300/-. The learned counsel for the petitioners ultimately submitted that upon deposit of such amount, hearing may be given to the company. 5. The learned counsel for the respondent no.2 submitted that if the amount is deposited, the respondents have no objection to give a fresh hearing to the petitioners in respect of the total claim made out by the respondent -: 3 :- against the petitioners. 6. All the aforesaid concessions and/or statements made by both the counsel are hereby accepted. Therefore, we pas the following order:- O R D E R (i) The petitioners shall deposit with the respondent no.2-Corporation within a period of ten weeks from today an amount of Rs.69,80,300/-. (ii) Only after deposit of such amount in cash or if such amount is deposited by cheque, after the realisation of the cheque, the respondent no.2 shall initiate an inquiry for adjudication of its claim in issue in this petition under the ESI Act. (iii) All this exercise of inquiry, etc., shall be completed by the respondents within eight weeks from the date of actual receipt of the aforesaid amount of Rs.69,80,300/-. (iv) After adjudication, the authorities shall adjust the aforesaid amount deposited by the petitioners towards the claim of the respondent in issue. If -: 4 :- the petitioners are found entitled for refund of any amount, it shall be refunded to the petitioners. If it is found that the petitioners are liable to deposit more amount than the aforesaid amount that they are directed to deposit, the petitioners are also hereby directed to deposit such additional amount within eight weeks from the date of such adjudication. (v) Even though we have directed by clause (iii) above the petitioners to deposit such additional amount, such direction is only to secure the amount in issue so that the petitioners should not postpone the deposit of such additional amount by protracting the litigation. Only after depositing such additional amount if found due, the petitioners are at liberty to follow the statutory remedies that may be available to the petitioners under law. 7. The Writ Petition stands disposed of. (A.A. KUMBHAKONI, J.) (S.B. MHASE, J.)