AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Markandey Katju, C.J.—This writ appeal has been filed against the impugned judgment of the ed single Judge dated 17.12.2004. Heard the
learned counsel for the appellant.
The appellant filed the writ petition challenging the demand notice issued u/s 45B of the Employees State Insurance Act. In our opinion, the
petitioner/appellant has a clear alternative remedy of filing an application u/s 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 W.L.R. 22 and in Madura Sugars Staff Union
and Ors. v. Madura Sugar Mills, 2005 W.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 The Premier Automobiles Ltd. Vs. Kamlekar Shantaram Wadke of Bombay
and Others, , Rajasthan State Road Transport Corporation and Another Vs. Krishna Kant and Others, , Whirlpool Corporation Vs. Registrar of
Trade Marks, Mumbai and Others, , and U.P. State Bridge Corporation Ltd. and Others Vs. U.P. Rajya Setu Nigam S. Karamchari Sangh, .
Hence we dismiss the writ appeal and also the writ petition on the ground of alternative remedy before the Employees State Insurance Court u/s
75 of the Employees State Insurance Act.
If the appellant files an application u/s 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.