Williams Photography v. Assistant Director / Deputy Director
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 18-07-2025
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE P. DHANABAL and WMP Nos.18986 & 18987 of 2022 Williams Photography Petitioner Vs
1. Assistant Director / Deputy Director Employees State Insurance Corporation Panchdeep Bhawan, 143 Sterling Road, Chennai-600 034.
2.Office of the Recovery Officer, Regional Office (RO-Chennai), Employees State Insurance Corporation Panchdeep Bhawan, 143, Sterling Road, Chennai-600 034.
3.The Bank Manager, State Bank of India, Alwarpet Branch, 241, TTK Alwarpet Road, Chennai-600 018.
Respondents
PRAYER Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying to issue a Writ of Ceriorarified Mandamus, Calling for the records relating to the order passed by 1st Respondent dated 25.02.2022 in reference No. 51001123530001099 / 21420221227 / INS2 and quash the same and consequently forbear the respondent from levying any amount as contribution under the ESI Act, 1948.
For Petitioner:
M/s.S.Vaitheeswari For Respondents:
Mrs.S. Jayakumari, for R1 and R2 R-3 - No Appearance
ORDER
This writ petition has been preferred relating to the order passed by 1st Respondent dated 25.02.2022 in reference No. 51001123530001099 / 21420221227 / INS2, quash the same and consequently forbear the respondent from levying any amount as contribution under the ESI Act, 1948. 2.The learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner concern is a freelancing agency, doing photography business and is in existence from 2014 onwards. On 01.03.2015, a notice was received by the petitioner from the Regional Office of ESI, for implementing the ESI Act, 1948 and
Registration of Employees of the Factories and Establishments under Section 1(3)/1(5) of the ESI Act. Therefore, the petitioner approached the officials of the st respondent and informed that the petitioner will not be covered under ESI Act and there was no response from them. She would submit that the petitioner had submitted a letter to the Manager of ESI Corporation on 05.10.2018 had paid a sum of Rs.1,02,329/- to the ESI Account in ESI Number 112 353 and requested the respondent to cancel the ESI account of the petitioner as the Act is not applicable to the petitioner. On 24.02.2020, the 1 st respondent had issued order under Section 45-A of the Employees' State Insurance Act, 1948 (As Amended), which was sent to the old address of the petitioner and thereby the petitioner was not aware of the said notice and now only after receiving freezing the bank account, the petitioner came to know about the said notice through the rd respondent bank.
2.1. The learned counsel would also submit that the petitioner proprietary concern is not covered under the ESI Act 1948 since there were less than ten employees at the relevant point of time. However, the 1 st respondent issued
attachment notice under Section 45-G of the Act on 21.04.2022 to the 3 rd respondent/SBI Bank ordering to freeze the bank account of the petitioner which was received by the bank on 29.04.2022. Thereafter the 1 st respondent issued impugned notice dated 25.02.2022 for recovery of the contributions under Section 45-C to 45-I of the ESI Act along with interest. The impugned order passed by the 1 st respondent is not sustainable, since the provisions of the ESI Act would not apply to the petitioner concern, the 1 st respondent without inspecting the petitioner concern and also without providing opportunity to the petitioner passed the order and hence the impugned order is liable to be quashed.
3.The learned counsel appearing for the respondent nos.1 and 2 would submit that already the 1 st respondent passed an order under Section 45-A of the ESI Act. But, without challenging the said order, now only challenged the consequential recovery order passed by the 1 st respondent dated 25.2.2022 under Section 45-C of the Act and therefore, he prays to dismiss the petition.
4.This Court heard both sides and perused the materials placed on record. 5.In this case, the petitioner challenged the impugned proceedings on the ground that the ESI Act would not apply to the petitioner's establishment as the minimum number of employees of 7 persons alone employed. However, already the authority had passed an order under Section 45-A in proceedings No.TN/insII/C18 Adh/51-00-112353-000-1099 dated 24.02.2020 and the same is also admitted by the petitioner, but according to the petitioner, they changed the address and thereby they are unable to receive the notice for the proceedings under Section 45-A of the ESI Act. However, without challenging the said order under Section 45-A of the ESI Act, they cannot challenge the consequential order passed by the authorities. Therefore, the petitioner is at liberty to challenge the order before the appropriate forum in accordance with law and the petitioner is entitled to the benefit of Section 14 of the Limitation Act during the pendency of the writ petition.
6.With the above observation, this writ petition stands dismissed. There is no order as to costs. Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petitions are closed.
gbi 18-07-2025 Index:Yes/No Speaking/Non-speaking order Internet:Yes
To 1.Assistant Director / Deputy Director Employees State Insurance Corporation Panchdeep Bhawan 143 Sterling Road Chennai 600 034.
2.Office of the Recovery Officer Regional Office (RO-Chennai) Employees State Insurance Corporation Panchdeep Bhawan 143, Sterling Road Chennai 600034.
3.The Bank Manager State Bank of India Alwarpet Branch 241, TTK Alwarpet Road Chennai 18.
P.DHANABAL J.
gbi 18-07-2025