^L 1- ^' IN mGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, AT BILASPUR m THE MATTER OF MISC. APPEAL N0. ^£ OF 2009 c^ ^ •/' o e. APPELLANT/ Non-Applicante J"ytJ?^M. _ 3.^T 2.Recovery Officer, State Ins l.Employees State Insurance Corporation, 18, South Avenue, Choube Colony,Raipur, Through its^The Regional Director, ll^kls ^"\k..V-t5> RESPONDENT / Applicant. Respondent/ Non-Applicant No.3 ^ vs. Employees State Insurance Corporation, 18, SouthAvenue, Choube Colony, Raipur. Kanoi Paper & Industries Ltd now known as M/s AIGO Paper & Industries Ltd., Situated at Village Dhenka, District Bilaspur, Through its Factory Manager, Branch Manager, UTI Bank, Now Known as Axis Bank, Bilaspur. APPEAL UNDER SECTION 82 OF THE EMPLOYEES STATE INSURANCE ACT 1948 .„!„„__ ???i5?iK^^^^^§SfiT; NR. I.M.QUDDUSIA 33. M.A.Mo.76/2009 :mp!oyees State Insurance Corporation, Raipur &.. anr. Vs M/s Kanoi Paper & Industrles Ltd., now known as AIGO Paper & Industrles Ltcj. & anr.. Non-applicant Appjjcant Mr. Pradeep Saxen.a. Advocate for the appellant, Mr. 'N.K. Vyas, Advocate for the respondent. ORDER fOral ith 30l"'SspS©rsber,2G 1. Heard.. 2. The appejiant,has preferred this app'eai under Section 82 of the Employees State Insurance Act, 194Q (for brevity 'the Act, 1948'') against the order and.decree dated 12.06.2009 passed in Case No.35/ E.S.I.A./07 whereby the learned Judge under the Act, 1948, Biiaspur (CG) has quashed the order dated 20.10.2006, demand notice d-ated 27.2.2007 and prohlbltory order dated 16.3.2007 and directed the appeiiant to refund the amount recovered from . the respondent No.l company. 3. This appeai involves the substantial question of iaw to the effect as to whether the ES'I Court was correct in setting aslde the Impugned orders of the authorities beiow on the ground that adequate opportunity was not gran'ted to the •^^^•^••^ \^ -s" i j respondents without remitting the matter to the authority below. 4. Brief facts of the case are that respondent No.l Is a company and was ail'otted ESI Code No.10168-81 which was changed on formation of new State of C.G. and now it is 59- 10168-81. On the djrections of the Regional Director, the Inspector inspected the pramises of the respondent No.l- company on 22.8.2006 to assess the omitted contrjbution and wages for the period AprlJ, 1995 to March, 2006. On the basis of Inspection report, ad-hoc assessment of omitted wages and contributlon payable by the respondent company i.e. Rs. 1,66,44,899/-, was prepared an.d thereafter a show- cause notice dated 13.9.2006 was issued to the respondent company caiiing upon them to appear on 9.10.2006 alona 'with ai! refevant records. Thereafter, the Regiona! Director, :SIC, Raipur exercising the powers conferred on him by Section 45 (KA) of the Act, 1948 confirmed the omltted wages & contributions vide order dated vide 28.10.2006 and directed the respondent company to deposit Rs. 1,66,44.899/- wlthin 15 days, faliing which recovery proceedings shall be Initiated as per Section 45-C to 45-1 of the Act, 1948. The respondent company faited to compiy with the order dated 28.10.2006 and therefore recovery certificate was issued on 26.2.2007 to the Rscovery Officer, who, In turn, issued a demand notice dated 27.2.2007 to the respondent company caiiing upon them to pay Rs.1,66,44,899/- with interest i.Q. totai Rs. 1,77,32,909/-, within 15 days else recovery proceedings shall be initiated ^: w^ In accordance with faw. Despite issuance of demand notice the respondent did not pay any amount, therefore, the Recovery Officer issued the prohibitory orders on 16.3.2007, 5. The respondentcompany chalienging the above orders riled an appiicatlon before the ESI Court, Bilaspur and the iearned Judge, ESI Court, Bllaspur quashed the order dated 20.10.2006, demand notice dated 27.2.2007 and prohibitory order dated 16.3.2007 passed by the appellantson the ground that opportunity of hearjng has not been given to the respondent and directed to refund the amount recovered from the respondent company. 6. We have heard iearned counsel for the parties and perused the rscords. 7. The cous-t beiow had framed foifowing three issues:" a Whether the impugned orders passed by the appeiiants dated 20.10.2006, 27.2.20.07.& 16.3.2007 were passed against the estabiishment without foiiowina the pnncipies of naturai justice j.e, without providing adequate opportunity to put their pieadings before the authority concerned? » Whether the above orders are iiable to 'be set aside? " Reliefs & cost? 8. The court beiow, after answering all the three issues in favour of the respondent company and against the appeilants, set aslde the impugned orders hoiding the same as iile'gai and dlrected that the amount which has been recovered from the respondent company herein shouid be refunded within 30 days. ^"'t'' ^ .^^',1 '' .-r"^ ^ 9. However, we are of the vlew that once the court has held that the decision for recovery has been taken by the authority without foiiowing the principies of naturaj justice, it was the duty of the court to remand the matfcer to the authority after setting aside its order, as it was tha basic duty of the authority beiow to consider the pleadings of the respondent company hereln before passing any order. < 10. In view of the above, without going into the merlts of the case, we are of the opinion that the rnatter requires reconsideration at the end of authority below. Accordingiy, we set aside the order dated 12.06.2009 passed by the iearned court beiow in Case No.35/ESIC/2007 as aiso the orders dated 20.10.2006, 27.2.2007& 16.3.2007 passed by the authorities beiow and remit the matter to the authority beiow j.e. the Regiona! Director, ESIC, Raipur, who had passed the order dated 20.10.2006, for deciding the matter afresh after giving adequate opportunity of hearing to the parties to put their case before it. The parties may aiso iead additiona! evidence, if any, in support of their respective cases. Needisss to mention that tlll the fresh order is passed, no further action shall be taken against the parties. 11. The appeal Is aflowed in part to the extent indicated above. 12. Certlfied copy as per rules. Roshan/ Sd/- I.M.Quddusi Judge ,. Sd/- N. K. Agarwal judge ^ |7'h +