AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
M. Katju, J.—Heard Shri S.K. Gupta learned counsel for appellant and Shri P. K. Pandey for respondents.
The petitioner has challenged the Impugned order dated 23.4.2001 passed u/s 75(2B) of the Employees State Insurance Act. It appears that a notice u/s 45B of the Employees State Insurance Act was Issued to the appellant and thereafter he raised a dispute u/s 75 alleging, inter alia, that its unit was not covered by the Act and the impugned recovery was Illegal. The appellant also applied u/s 75(2B) for waiver of the deposit of 50% of the amount in question, but that application has been rejected by the impugned order, hence this appeal.
We have carefully perused the Impugned order dated 23.4.2001 and find that no proper reasons have been given In the same for refusing the prayer for waiver of the deposit of 50%. All that has been stated in the Impugned order Is that the appellant has not been given sufficient ground for getting the waiver. In our opinion, this is not the proper way to decide the application of the appellant u/s 75(2B). The respondent should have applied his mind to the affidavit filed by the appellant along with his waiver application. A true copy of the said affidavit is Annexure-10 to the stay application. In that, affidavit, the applicant alleged that he has no money to make the deposit in question as he has a very small bank account. He also made other averments in support of his plea. All these matters should have been considered by the respondent before disposing of the application u/s 75(2B). Since that has not been done, we arc of the opinion that the impugned order dated 23.4.2001 is arbitrary and illegal and it is hereby quashed. The matter is remanded to the authority concerned who will pass a fresh order for considering any material adduced by the appellant and after giving proper reasons.
Till the disposal of the said application, the Impugned recovery shall remain stayed.
Appeal is allowed.