Allahabad High Court
M/S P.K. Enterprises vs Deputy Director Esi Corporation on 9 October, 2023
Bench: Manju Rani Chauhan
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
?Neutral Citation No. - 2023:AHC:193508
Court No. - 6
Case :- WRIT - C No. - 29042 of 2023
Petitioner :- M/S P.K. Enterprises
Respondent :- Deputy Director Esi Corporation
Counsel for Petitioner :- Piyush Bhargava
Counsel for Respondent :- Pramod Kumar Pandey,Pradeep Kumar Srivastava
Hon'ble Mrs. Manju Rani Chauhan,J.
The petitioner has preferred the instant writ petition for the following principal relief:
"(i) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of Certiorari calling for the records of the proceedings under Section 45-A of the ESI Act in the matter of P.K. Enterprises and quash the impugned order dated 30-06-2023 passed by the Deputy Director ESI Corporation Kanpur - Respondent No.-1."
Learned counsel for the respondents has raised preliminary objections regarding maintainability of the writ petition stating that statutory remedy of filing an appeal is provided under Section 45-AA of the Employees' State Insurance Act, 1948.
To the objections, as raised above, learned counsel for the petitioner placed reliance on a judgement of Division Bench of this Court in the case of Smt. Vijaya Jain v. State of U.P. and others, 2015(9) ADJ 503 (DB), and submits that there is no bar in entertaining the writ petition, if there is violation of principles of natural justice. Relevant Paragraph No. 10 of the said judgement reads thus:
"10. The law as authoritatively laid down by the Supreme Court in the aforementioned two judgments clearly establishes that a petitioner before the High Court is not liable to be relegated to the alternative remedy as a matter of rule. If in the facts of a particular case it is established that the principles of natural justice have been violated or that the order has been rendered without jurisdiction or if it is disclosed to the Court that grave injustice has been caused to the petitioner and it is found that his relegation to the alternative remedy would perpetuate injustice and cause prejudice, it is always open to this Court to exercise its prerogative constitutional powers and to issue an appropriate writ striking at the offending action. This principle stands extended in light of the abovementioned precedents to a case where the petitioner is foisted with an exorbitant and arbitrary demand in which case his relegation to the alternative remedy would not be justified."
Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that no opportunity of hearing has been provided to the petitioner whereas all required documents have been produced before the respondent authority, but same have not been accepted and showing that the documents have not been placed by the petitioner, the order impugned has been passed in violation of principles of natural justice, which is liable to be to be quashed.
Learned counsel for the respondent could not dispute the aforesaid fact.
Having considered the facts and circumstances of the case, I find that the order impugned has been passed without affording any opportunity of bearing heard to the petitioner and without considering the documents as placed, thus, the order impugned dated 30.06.2023 is set aside. A direction is issued upon the respondent authority to consider and decide the petitioner's matter afresh, in accordance with law, in case the petitioner files an application along with a copy of writ petition and other documents within two weeks. The decision be taken by respondent authority within next two month.
The writ petition stands allowed accordingly.
No order as to costs.
Order Date :- 9.10.2023
DS
