IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE V.GIRI FRIDAY, THE 10TH JULY 2009 / 19TH ASHADHA 1931 WP(C).No. 18876 of 2009(D) -------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- ESSJAY ELECTRONIKS (P) LTD, KALLINGAPARAMBIL, NOCHIMA, NAD P.O., REP. BY SHAJI SEBASTIAN MANAGING DIRECTOR. BY ADV. SRI.SADHANA KUMARI.E. RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. EMPLOYEES STATE INSURANCE CO., REF. THE DEPUTY DIRECTOR, REGIONAL OFFICE (KERALA), PANCHDEEP BHAVAN, NORTH SWARAJ ROUND POST BAG NO.2, THRISSUR-20. 2. THE RECOVERY OFFICER, CENTRAL ZONE, E.S.I.CORPORATION, THRISSUR-20. 3. THE RECOVERY OFFICER, OFFICE OF THE RECOVERY OFFICER, EMPLOYEE'S STATE INSURANCE CORPORATION, PANCHDEEP BHAVAN, NORTH ROUND, THRISSUR-20. BY SC SRI.P.SANKARANKUTTY NAIR THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 10/07/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: V.GIRI, J ------------------- W.P.(C).18876/2009 -------------------- Dated this the 10th day of July, 2009 JUDGMENT Petitioner is a Company manufacturing electrical boards and it is covered by the ESI Act. Ext.P2 notice bearing date 30.4.2009, was issued demanding an amount of Rs.75,977/- which is in respect of the arrears from the years 1996-97, 1998-99 and 1999-00. According to the petitioner, it had already paid the amount by way of arrears for the said period. But the petitioner did not give a reply to Ext.P2. Thereafter, another letter was received by the petitioner on 22.5.2009, giving the petitioner another opportunity to remit the amount covered by Ext.P2. Petitioner submits that the amounts covered by Ext.P2 had already been paid as evidenced by Ext.P3 series of Chalan. Essentially the case of the petitioner is that there is a duplication of the demand made by the Employees State Insurance Corporation. ESI refutes the said submission. It affirms the demands made in Ext.P2. 2. The only direction that is required at this stage is one W.P.(C).18876/2009 2 to the ESI to give the petitioner an opportunity to show that the amounts now demanded under Ext.P2 either in whole or in part, had already been paid earlier. This the petitioner may demonstrate with specific reference to the remittance of the amount with details of the period during which such remittance has been made. The competent authority shall verify this and issue a reply to the petitioner. If it is found that the petitioner's claim is wrong, it will be open to the competent authority to proceed to enforce the demand notice already issued by the ESI. I make it clear that I have not considered the correctness of the contentions raised by the petitioner. Nor is a direction to the Recovery Officer, to verify the claim made by the petitioner intended to afford the petitioner a fresh opportunity, to challenge the correctness of the demand made by the ESI. Nor is the ESI required to issue a fresh demand notice as such to the petitioner. The competent authority, ESI, shall only verify the claim made by the petitioner and then proceed to enforce the demand notice already issued after ascertaining whether any demand already made has been satisfied by W.P.(C).18876/2009 3 the petitioner earlier and whether any such demand is a duplication as such. Writ petition is disposed of as above. V.GIRI, Judge mrcs