M/S Aastha Modes vs. Employees State Insurance Corporation & Anr.

Held

The Court held that the petitioner's plea that the impugned order dated July 21, 2017, was sent to a wrong address was untenable and appeared to be an afterthought. The Court examined the counter affidavit filed by the respondent ESIC, which included the petitioner's letterhead (Annexure R-2) and another document (Annexure R-1). Both these documents clearly depicted the address of the petitioner's head office as 26/53, West Punjabi Bagh, New Delhi-110026. The Court found that the address used by the ESIC for dispatching the order matched the address provided by the petitioner in its own documents. Therefore, the Court concluded that the petitioner had not made out a case for the order being sent to a wrong address and found no merit in the petition. The petition was dismissed. The applications for de-freezing the bank account and interim stay were also dismissed as infructuous.

Facts

The petitioner, M/s Aastha Modes, filed a writ petition seeking to recall an order dated July 21, 2017, passed by the Deputy Director, ESIC, and to defreeze its bank account. The petitioner contended that the impugned order was never served as it was sent to incorrect addresses, citing discrepancies in the house number (26/53 instead of 22/53) and PIN code (110046 instead of 110045). The respondents, Employees State Insurance Corporation (ESIC) and another, argued that the addresses used were correct. The Court had previously directed the petitioner to provide its ESI registration certificate and the ESIC to confirm the petitioner's address on record and its communication practices. The Court also ordered the bank account to be defreezed subject to maintaining a minimum balance of Rs. 2 lakhs.

Key Issues

1. Whether the impugned order dated July 21, 2017, passed by the Deputy Director, ESIC, was duly served on the petitioner, considering the alleged discrepancies in the address and PIN code to which it was sent? Petitioner's Contention: The petitioner argued that the order was not served because it was dispatched to an incorrect address, specifically citing a wrong house number (26/53 instead of 22/53) and PIN code (110046 instead of 110045). They relied on their GST documents and Aadhar card to support their correct address. Respondents' Contention: The respondents (ESIC) contended that the address used for sending the order was correct, as evidenced by the petitioner's letterhead and another document (Annexure R-1) which clearly depicted the address as 26/53, West Punjabi Bagh, New Delhi-110026. They argued that the petitioner's plea of wrong address was an afterthought and an attempt to mislead the Court.