CWP NO.4443 OF 1988 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH DATE OF DECISION: 25.11.2008 M/s Vikon Electrical Works (P) Ltd. and another .Petitioners Versus The Collector, Jalandhar and others ..Respondents CORUM HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE PERMOD KOHLI Present: Mr.A.P.Bhandari, Advocate for the petitioner Mr.SS Sahu, AAG, Punjab for respondents PERMOD KOHLI,J. (ORAL) Petitioner No.1 is the Company whereas petitioner no.2 is its Managing Director. The petitioners have challenged the recovery proceedings initiated against the petitioner by the ESI Corporation- respondent no.3 for an amount of Rs.73629.90 on account of Employees’ Contribution as also the Employer’s Contribution under the Land Revenue Act. It is not in dispute that the Company was covered under the Employees’ Provident Fund and Misc. Provisions Act, 1952 as also ESI Act, 1948. It is stated in the petition that the Company has turned out to be sick and closed its business activities. The Company had also secured loan from State Bank of India for which suit had been filed by the State Bank of India for recovery against the Company. Earlier, recovery proceedings were initiated CWP NO.4443 OF 1988 2 against the petitioner by the Provident Fund Commissioner and property of the Company was sought to be attached. The State Bank of India filed a suit against the attachment of the property which was partly allowed with the direction that the Provident Fund Commissioner shall not have the first charge over the property of the Company which is subject to mortgage with the State Bank of India having first charge. The petitioners have challenged the recovery and also the provisions of Sections 68 and 69 of the Punjab Land Revenue Act which, inter alia, provides for recovery of the amount payable under the ESI Act as arrears of land revenue. No reply to this petition has been filed by any of the respondents. Hence this petition has been heard in absence of the reply. Short question involves in this petition is as to whether Sections 68 and 69 of the Land Revenue Act are liable to be quashed. From the averments made in the petition, it appears that nothing has been mentioned to challenge the provisions of the aforesaid Act, except stating that the provisions of the Act are arbitrary. It is settled law that vires of the Act is to be presumed by the Court and very strong grounds and basis are required to interfere in the legislative enactment. No such ground exists in the present writ petition. In so far as recovery against the petitioner is concerned, it is stated that the Company has its property, both movable and immovable. The respondents are at liberty to recover the amount from the property of the Company, subject to the decree of the Civil Court as mentioned here-in-above. The respondents have also issued CWP NO.4443 OF 1988 3 warrants of arrest against petitioner no.2. This Court, while admitting the writ petition on 26.5.1988, stayed the arrest of petitioner no.2. Petitioner no.2 in capacity of Managing Director can only be arrested, if he is a guarantor or has any personal liability under law. Otherwise the petitioner cannot be arrested for recovery of the amount against the Company. In this view of the matter, this petition is disposed of with a direction to the respondents to effect recovery from the property and assets of the Company, both movable and immovable. However, Petitioner no.2 in capacity of Managing Director can only be arrested, if he is a guarantor or has any person liability under law. (PERMOD KOHLI) JUDGE 25.11.2008 MFK