The Bombay High Court set aside an order passed under Section 45A of the Employees’ State Insurance Act, 1948, due to the non-supply of interim reports that formed the basis of the decision. The Court held that the principles of natural justice were violated, as the company was not provided with relevant reports, nor given an opportunity to respond before the decision was made. The case was remanded for fresh consideration, and the ESIC was directed to provide the necessary reports and offer the petitioner an opportunity to present its case.

The main issue involved the breach of natural justice principles where the Petitioner, SBI General Insurance Company Limited, was not supplied with copies of interim reports relied upon by the ESIC while passing an assessment order. The Bombay High Court held that this failure necessitated a quashing of the order and a fresh decision after following due process.

1. Introduction and Parties:

   • Fact: SBI General Insurance Company Limited filed a writ petition challenging an order passed by the ESIC under Section 45A of the Employees’ State Insurance Act, 1948.
   • Legal Provision: Article 226 of the Constitution of India.

2. Petitioner’s Submissions:

   • Fact: The petitioner argued that the impugned order, dated 29th December 2023/1st January 2024, was passed without adherence to the principles of natural justice as interim reports relied upon were not provided to them.
   • Legal Provision: Reference to the violation of natural justice and reliance on Supreme Court judgment in Whirlpool Corporation vs. Registrar of Trade Marks.

3. Respondent’s Counter:

   • Fact: ESIC contended that the writ petition should not be entertained as an alternative remedy of appeal was available under the ESI Act.
   • Legal Provision: Citing the Supreme Court’s decision in Greatship (India) Limited where it was held that parties should be relegated to statutory remedies.

4. Principle of Natural Justice:

   • Fact: The interim reports submitted by the Social Security Officer (dated 2nd June 2021 and 30th November 2021) were not shared with the petitioner, and decisions were made based on these reports.
   • Legal Provision: Supreme Court decisions in T. Takano vs. SEBI and Kothari Filaments vs. Commissioner of Customs highlighting the necessity of providing material relied upon for adjudication.

5. Judicial Findings:

   • Fact: The court found a clear violation of natural justice as the petitioner was denied the opportunity to respond to material relied upon.
   • Legal Provision: Article 226 and the Supreme Court’s Whirlpool judgment, allowing writ petitions where natural justice violations are evident, even if alternate remedies exist.

Ratio Decidendi:

The court reiterated that when material is relied upon in adjudicatory proceedings, the principles of natural justice mandate that the concerned party must be given access to the material and an opportunity to respond. Denying this right justifies judicial intervention under Article 226, despite the availability of alternative statutory remedies.

Acts and Sections Discussed:

1. Employees’ State Insurance Act, 1948:

   • Section 45A: Pertains to determining contributions payable by employers in cases of default.
   • Section 45AA, Sections 75 and 77: Relating to appeals and Employees’ Insurance Courts.

2. Constitution of India:

   • Article 226: Power of High Courts to issue certain writs, including in cases where natural justice is violated.

Subjects: 

ESIC, ESI Act, Section 45A, Natural Justice, Writ Jurisdiction, Bombay High Cour