IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC FRIDAY, THE 9TH JANUARY 2009 / 19TH POUSHA 1930 WP(C).No. 97 of 2009(J) ------------------------------ PETITIONER : ---------------- PARAYIL FOOD PRODUCTS PVT. LTD., DEVELOPMENT AREA, AOOR, ALLEPPEY DISTRICT, REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR, P.M. MATHEW, BY ADV. SRI.SUNIL JACOB JOSE RESPONDENTS : ------------------- 1. EMPLOYEES STATE INSURANCE CORPORATION, REGIONAL OFFICE, KERALA, PANCHDEEP BHAVAN, THRISSUR, REPRESENTED BY THE REGIONAL DIRECTOR. 2. THE JOINT DIRECTOR, EMPLOYEES STATE INSURANCE CORPORATION, REGIONAL OFFICE, KERALA, PANCHADEEP BHAVAN, THRISSUR. ADV.SRI.P.SANKARANKUTTY NAIR, SC FOR R1 GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI.SANDESH RAJA THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 09/01/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: ANTONY DOMINIC, J. --------------------------- W.P.(C) No. 97 of 2009 ------------------------------------ Dated this the 9th day of January, 2009 JUDGMENT Challenge in this writ petition is against Exhibits P5 and P6. The second respondent issued Exhibit P2 notice to the petitioner, proposing to determine the amount due from the petitioner under Section 45A of the ESI Act. On its receipt, petitioner filed Exhibit P4 objection. According to the petitioner, one of his Manager was authorised to represent him before the second respondent, but as he resigned from service, there was no representation in the course of enquiry. It is stated that the proceedings were culminated in Exhibit P5 order under Section 45 A the Act and based on Exhibits P5 and P6, notice for recovery also has been issued. Strictly speaking, I cannot find any fault with the second respondent in issuing Exhibits P5 and P6 and for the reason that he had issued notice to the petitioner and it was their responsibility to be represented before the Authority. Still the fact remains that the order was passed without an effective hearing to the petitioner. Therefore, W.P.(C) No. 97/2009 2 for that reason, I am inclined to set aside Exhibits P5 and P6 and direct that the second respondent shall issue notice to the petitioner affording them an opportunity to make representations in the matter and thereafter pass fresh orders. With that liberty and leaving open contentions, this writ petition is disposed of. ANTONY DOMINIC, JUDGE scm