IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
Dated: 26/04/2005
Coram
THE HON'BLE MR. MARKANDEY KATJU, THE CHIEF JUSTICE
and
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE F.M.IBRAHIM KALIFULLA
Writ Appeal No. 828 of 2005
The Tuticorin
Thermal Power Station
Industrial Co-operative Society Ltd.,
Tuticorin-628 004. ... Appellant
-Vs-
1. The Deputy Regional
Director,
Sub-Regional Office, E.S.I.Corporation,
1-B, Old Post Office Street,
Thallakulam, Madurai-1.
2. The Joint Regional Director,
E.S.I.Corporation,
1-B, Old Post Office Street,
Thallakulam, Madurai-1.
3. The Regional Director,
E.S.I.Corporation, Chennai-600 034.
4. Insurance Inspector Revenue Recovery,
Sub-Regional Office,
E.S.I.Corporation,
1-B, Old Post Office Street,
Thallakulam, Madurai-1. ... Respondents
Writ Appeal filed under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent against the
order passed in W.P.No.15433 of 1997 dated 17.12.2004.
!For appellant : Mr.R.Balasubramanian
^For Respondent : ---
:JUDGMENT
(Judgment of the Court was delivered by
The Hon’ble Chief Justice.)
This writ appeal has been filed against the impugned judgment
of the learned single Judge dated 17.12.2004. Heard the learned counsel for
the appellant.
2. The appellant filed the writ petition challenging the
demand notice issued under section 45(B) of the Employees State Insurance Act.
In our opinion, the petitioner/appellant has a clear alternative remedy of
filing an application under section 75 of the Employees State Insurance Act
before the Employees State Insurance Court. We cannot approve this kind of
practice of directly filing writ petition in this Court when a clear
alternative remedy is available. We have repeatedly held in Indian Additives
Limited v. Indian Additives Employees Union, 2005 Writ L.R. 22 and in Madura
Sugars Staff Union & others v. Madura Sugar Mills, 2005 Writ L.R. 25 that
when alternative remedy is available ordinarily that must be availed of. That
is the settled legal principle that has been repeatedly held by the Supreme
Court in Premier Automobiles Limited v. Kamlekar Shantaram Wadke, 197 6 I SCC
496, The Rajasthan State Road Transport Corporation v. Krishna Kant, AIR 1995
SC 1715, Whirlpool Corpoation v. Registrar of Trade Marks, 1998 (8) SCC 1,
and U.P.State Bridge Corporation Ltd. & others v. U.P.Rajya Setu Nigam
S.Karamchari Sangh, (2004) 4 SCC 268.
3. Hence we dismiss the writ appeal and also the writ petition on the
ground of alternative remedy before the Employees State Insurance Court under
Section 75 of the Employees State Insurance Act.
4. If the appellant files an application under Section 75 of the Act
within one month from today, the same will be entertained by the E. S.I Court
without raising any objection as to limitation and shall be decided
expeditiously thereafter in accordance with law after hearing the parties
concerned without being influenced by the judgment of the learned single
Judge. Consequently, WAMP No.1570 of 2005 is also dismissed.
Index:Yes
Internet:Yes
ns/pv
Copy to:
1. The Deputy Regional Director
Sub-Regional Office, E.S.I. Corporation,
1-B, Old Post Office Street,
Thallakulam, Madurai-1
2. The Joint Regional Director,
E.S.I. Corporation,
1-B, Old Post Office Street,
Thallakulam, Madurai-1.
3. The Regional Director,
E.S.I. Corporation, Chennai – 600 034.
4. Insurance Inspector Revenue Recovery,
Sub-Regional Office,
E.S.I. Corporation,
1-B, Old Post Office Street,
Thallakulam, Madurai-1.