IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.N.RAVINDRAN WEDNESDAY, THE 13TH JANUARY 2010 / 23TH POUSHA 1931 WP(C).No. 1188 of 2010(W) ---------------------------------------- PETITIONER(S): ----------------------- S.PRABHAKARAN ,AGED 60 S/O.SREEDHARA PANICKER, PROPRIETOR, INDIAN OIL DEALERS, KARAMANA,THIRUVANANTHAPURAM 695 009. BY ADV. MR.A.B.MOHANAKUMAR RESPONDENT(S): ------------------------- 1. EMPLOYEES STATE INSURANCE CORPORATION (ESIC) DIVISIONAL OFFICE, KARUMPELIL AVENUE PATTATHANAM PO,KOLLAM 691 021 REPRESENTED BY ITS JOINT DIRECTOR. 2. RECOVERY OFFICER EMPLOYEES STATE INSURANCE CORPORATION REGIONAL OFFICE,THRISSUR. BY ADV. MR.P.SANKARANKUTTY NAIR, SC THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 13/01/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: tss P.N.RAVINDRAN, J. ---------------------------------------- W.P.(C) No. 1188 of 2010 - W ---------------------------------------- Dated 13rd January, 2010 Judgment The petitioner has filed this writ petition challenging Ext.P3 notice issued by the first respondent calling upon the petitioner to pay the contribution determined by Ext.P2 order with interest. The petitioner has also prayed for a direction to the first respondent to reconsider Ext.P2 order after giving the petitioner an opportunity to adduce evidence. 2. Ext.P2 is an order passed under section 45A of the Employees' State Insurance Act, 1948 determining the contribution payable by the petitioner under the Employees' State Insurance Scheme. Ext.P2 order was passed on 28.7.2009. When the amount determined therein was not paid, the first respondent issued Ext.P3 notice dated 14.10.2009 demanding payment of the contribution determined in Ext.P2 order together with interest thereon. Under section 75 of the Employees' State Insurance Act, 1948 W.P.(C) No.1188/2010 2 any dispute between the principal employer and the Corporation as regards the applicability of the Employees' State Insurance Act, 1948 and the rate of contribution payable have to be decided by the Employees' Insurance Court. Under section 77 of the said Act, every proceedings before the Employees' Insurance Court has to be commenced by filling an application within a period of three years from the date on which the cause of action arose. The petitioner thus has an effective and meaningful remedy before the Employees' Insurance Court. In such circumstances, I am of the opinion that the petitioner should invoke the said remedy instead of seeking the intervention of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. I accordingly dismiss this writ petition without prejudice to the petitioner's contentions and reserving liberty with him to move the Employees' Insurance Court. P.N.RAVINDRAN Judge vaa