IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.N.RAVINDRAN THURSDAY, THE 14TH JANUARY 2010 / 24TH POUSHA 1931 WP(C).No. 901 of 2010(K) ------------------------ PETITIONER(S): --------------- M.HAMEED, S/O.ABOOBACKER, HASEENA MANZIL, P.O.MUDIANGA, PATHAYAKUNNU, THALASSERY,KANNUR DT. BY ADV. SRI.A.MOHAMED MUSTAQUE SRI.T.PRAVEEN RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. THE EMPLOYEES STATE INSURANCE CORPORATION,'PANCHADEEP BHAVAN', NORTH SWARAJ ROUND, POST BAG NO.2, TRICHUR -20. 2. THE RECOVERY OFFICER, OFFICE OF THE RECOVERY OFFICER, EMPLOYEES STATE INSURANCE CORPORATION,'PANJADEEP BHAVAN', NORTH ROUND, TRICHUR -20. BY SRI. P.SANKARANKUTTY NAIR, SC THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 14/01/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: P.N.RAVINDRAN, J. --------------------------- W.P.(C) No. 901 OF 2010 -------------------------- Dated this the 14th day of January, 2010 J U D G M E N T The petitioner, who is the Managing Director of M/s Crown Garments (P) Ltd., has filed this writ petition seeking a direction to the second respondent to consider the request made in Ext.P6 and pass orders thereon. He also challenges Ext.P4 prohibitory order issued by the second respondent attaching the money lying in deposit with Punjab National Bank, Koothuparamba. 2. The pleadings disclose that the respondents have made a claim for Rs 5,29,149/- from the petitioner's establishment towards payment of ESI dues and that Ext.P4 prohibitory order has been passed directing the petitioner's bank to pay over the said sum to the Employees State Insurance Corporation. Ext.P5 visit note disclose that the petitioner was requested to appear before the recovery officer on 28.10.2009 and to produce proof of remittance of the said amount. It was thereafter that the petitioner sent Ext.P6 letter dated 24.10.2009 disputing his liability to pay the amount demanded in Exts.P4 and P5 contending that the company is defunct. W.P.(C) No. 901/2010 2 3. In my opinion, the claim made by the petitioner in Ext.P6 is a matter for the Employees State Insurance Court to decide. In such circumstances, the second respondent cannot be directed to consider Ext.P6 and to take a decision thereon. The second respondent has made its stand clear by issuing Ext.P5 visit note. If the petitioner is aggrieved by the demand made by the second respondent, it is for him to institute appropriate proceedings in the Employees State Insurance Court. The claim made by the petitioner in Ext.P6 is essentially a dispute between the petitioner and the Employees State Insurance Corporation which can be resolved only by the Employees State Insurance Court. I therefore find not grounds to entertain this writ petition. The writ petition fails and is accordingly dismissed without prejudice to the right of the petitioner to move the Employees State Insurance Court seeking redressal of his grievances. P.N.RAVINDRAN, JUDGE vps