But when the question of recovery is companysidered, certain other aspects cannot be ignored.
Inter alia it was companytended that the applicant respondent in this appeal at numbertime employed 20 or more persons during the relevant time.
The Insurance Inspectors of the appellant verified the records of the respondent establishment on 29.9.87, 9.10.87 and 19.10 87.
Again, reminder was sent on 22.9.88.
Subsequently, a detailed order dated 3.8.88 under section 45 A of the Act was passed calling upon the respondent to pay a companytribution of Rs.
These companytentions were refuted by the appellant.
Aggrieved by the same the appellant Corporation preferred an appeal in M.F.A. No.
Though the respondent was afforded an opportunity to appear before the officer, it was number availed of However, a letter dated 13.7.88 was received but the explanations were number acceptable to the appellant.
From the Judgment and Order dated 18.12.1990 of the Kerala High Court in M.F.A. No.
But there was numbercompliance.
The order was illegal because under section 45 A of the Act the respondent was entitled to a reasonable opportunity of being heard.
That was number afforded.
In respect of those employees who had already left, the ESI Corporation is number trying to recover companytribution.
It was incorrect to state that on numberoccasion the respondent employed 20 or more workmen since the inspection report dated 8.12.86 clearly established to the companytrary.
It was reported that the employment strength of the respondent establishment including Chembaka Restaurant and Mayuri Bar was more than 19 as on 17.7.85.
Since the final date of companyerage companyld be decided only after verifying all the records pertaining to the date of functioning of the establishment, the respondent was requested to produce all the records such as attendance register, wage register, ledgers etc.
The adhoc assessment itself was made by the opposite party after the closure of the entire establishment.
49,399.75 which was assessed under section 45 A of the Act for the period 11.7.85 to 313.88.
Hence, a numberice was issued in Form C 18 dated 26.3.88 along with a draft order for companytribution amount of Rs.
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION Civil Appeal No.
A Division Bench of the Kerala High Court by its order dated 18th December, 1990 posed the question for determination as to whether the appellant companyld proceed against respondent for realisation of companytribution under the ESI scheme, after the closure of establishment.
1854 of 1992.
S. Poti and R. Sasiprabhu for the Respondent.
L. Verma, V.J. Francis, V. Subramanian and Padmakumar for the Appellant.
49,399.75 together with interest at 6 per cent, failing which it would be companyered as an arrears of land revenue.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by MOHAN, J. This appeal by special leave is directed against i.e. judgment of the High Court of Kerala in M.F.A. No.
By its order dated 6th June, 1990 the Employees Insurance Court, Alleppey came to the following companyclusion In the result, I can only uphold the assessment made by the ESI Corporation.
The companytention that numberopportunity had been afforded before initiating the revenue recovery proceedings, was also denied in view of Form C 18 dated 23.6.88, show cause numberice dated 3.8.88 and reminder dated 22.9.88.
from the date of starting of the establishment.
In July, 1985 this establishment obtained a Bar licence whereupon a Bar was started.
Hence, in order to recover the companytribution under section 45 A of the Act, a claim in Form 19 was sent to the District Collector, Ernakulam on 31.10.88 requesting to recover the companytribution for the period from 11.7.85 to 31.3.88.
It is a companymercial establishment.
The respondent was also called upon to start companypliance under the Act with effect from 11.7.85.
Challenging these proceedings the respondent filed an application under section 75 of the Act before the Employees Insurance Court, Alleppey.
After running the business for some time it was closed down with effect from 31.3.88.
The short facts leading to this appeal are as under The respondent Hotel is situated in Kaloor, Cochin 17.
800 of 1990.
800/90 dated 18.12.90.
800 of 1990.
No reply was received.
Therefore, it was treated as companyered under the Employees State Insurance Act, 1948 hereinafter referred to as the Act with effect from 11.7.85 provisionally.
The fact of companyerage was intimated to the respondent by numberice dated 21.3.88.
