Sukeshi Oram v. Dy.Director-C-A.O.,

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK

W.P.(C) No.16379 of 2012 (Through hybrid mode) Sukeshi Oram ....

Petitioner Ms. S. Das, Advocate -versusDeputy Director (Revenue)-cumAuthorised Officer, Employees' State Insurance Corporation and another ....

Opposite Parties Mr. P.P. Ray, Advocate CORAM: JUSTICE ARINDAM SINHA Order No.

ORDER

15.12.2022 4.

1.

Ms. Das, learned advocate appears on behalf of petitioner and submits, her client has two fold defence to the allegations in the four show causes impugned in the writ petition. Firstly, the Act does not apply to her client and secondly, without prejudice to the first, at the material time the retail outlet had less than ten employees. She submits, alternative to her client's prayer Court to consider extending time for her client to file replies to the show cause notices. 2.

Mr. Ray, learned advocate appears on behalf of corporation and submits, no question can arise regarding coverage since petitioner had already deposited in part.

// 2 // 3.

In facts and circumstances recorded above Court is inclined to extend the time for petitioner to file replies to impugned show cause notices. In event the replies are filed by 28th December, 2022, the corporation will accept the same for consideration and disposal of the show cause matters. Decision taken must be informed to petitioner. 4.

With above directions, the writ petition is disposed of. (Arindam Sinha) Judge Sks