JUDGMENT Pradeep Nandrajog, J. 1. Having heard learned Counsel for the parties, in my opinion, it is a fit case to remand the matter for proper adjudication by the Competent Authority under the ESIC Act, 1948. 2. Since I am remanding the matter, lest any observation made by me prejudicially affects either party 1 shall be extremely brief. 3. It all commenced when the respondent issued a communication to the appellant on July 8, 1982 informing as under: Regional Office Employees State Insurance Corporation Emca House: 23/23-B: Ansari Road: Darya Ganj: New Delhi 2 No. D/Ins.I/11-223-11 Dated: July 8, 1982 M/s. Delhi Cloth and Gen. Mills Co. Ltd. (Br. Office/Sales Office) Bara Hindu Rao Delhi 110006 Subject: Inspection of records/Rectification of discrepancies. Dear Sir, As a result of inspection of your records for the period from January 28, 1968 to December 31, 1978 in respect of Textile Marketing Organisation and Branch Office/Sales Office conducted by the Insurance Inspector on March 16/22,1982 it has been observed that you have not paid contribution on a sum of Rs. 1,91,38,500/-paid through wages register/payment sheets forthe period January 28, 1968 to December 31, 1978 which are wages within meaning of Section 2(22) of the E.S.I. Act. A total sum of Rs. 18,69,860.75 is therefore payable by you as contribution and interest as per details given below: Qr. 1,91,38,500/-paid through wages register/payment sheets forthe period January 28, 1968 to December 31, 1978 which are wages within meaning of Section 2(22) of the E.S.I. Act. A total sum of Rs. 18,69,860.75 is therefore payable by you as contribution and interest as per details given below: Qr. Ending Wages Contribution Ra January 28,1968 to March 31,1968 243500.00 6087.50 April 1, 1968 to June 30, 1968 364700.00 10941.00 3% July 1, 1968 to September 30, 1968 365300.00 10959.00 3% October 1, 1968 to December 31, 1968 358800.00 10764.00 3% January 1, 1969 to March 31, 1969 337300.00 11119.00 3% April 1, 1969 to June 30, 1969 319200.00 9576.00 3% July 1, 1969 to September 30,1969 307500.00 9225.00 3% October 1, 1969 to December 31,1969 412000.00 12360.00 3% January 1, 1970 to March 31, 1970 374800.00 13118.00 3-1/ April 1, 1970 to June 30, 1970 422400.00 16896.00 4% July 1, 1970 to September 30, 1970 387500.00 15500.00 4% October 1, 1970 to December 31, 1970 387800.00 15512.00 4% January 1, 1971 to March 31,1971 380800.00 15232.00 4% April 1, 1971 to June 30, 1971 394100.00 15764.00 4% July 1, 1971 to September 30, 1971 365900.00 14636.00 4% October 1, 1971 to December 31, 1971 352000.00 14080.00 4% January 1, 1972 to March 31, 1972 323100.00 12924.00 4% April 1, 1972 to June 30, 1972 317400.00 12696.00 4% July 1, 1972 to September 30, 1972 351900.00 14076.00 4% October 1, 1972 to December 31, 1972 309400.00 12376.00 4% January 1, 1973 to March 31, 1973 249200.00 9968.00 4% April 1, 1973 to June 30, 1973 244600.00 9784.00 4% 7569200.00 271593.50 (II) E.C. Upto June 30, 1973 Wages = Rs. 75,69,200.00 Rate = 2 - 1/2% Contribution = 75,69,200.00 x 5 = 1,89,230.00 100 x 2 (III)Contribution from July 1, 1973 to December 31, 1978 Amount for the period from July 1, 1973 to December 31, 1978 is- Rs. 1,15,69,300.00 Rate = 7% Contribution = 1,15,69,300.00 x 7 = Rs. 8,09,851/- 100 Interest Upto June 30,1982 @ 6% E.S.C. = 1,88,583-25 E.C. = 1,28,386-15 Contribution = 2,82,216-85 The total dues of Rs. 18,69,860.75 may, therefore, please be deposited urgently. Further interest from July 1, 1982 @ 6% may also be paid upto the date of deposit. 1,15,69,300.00 Rate = 7% Contribution = 1,15,69,300.00 x 7 = Rs. 8,09,851/- 100 Interest Upto June 30,1982 @ 6% E.S.C. = 1,88,583-25 E.C. = 1,28,386-15 Contribution = 2,82,216-85 The total dues of Rs. 18,69,860.75 may, therefore, please be deposited urgently. Further interest from July 1, 1982 @ 6% may also be paid upto the date of deposit. You have also not produced the Contractors records for the period from A-day to March 31, 1976 which may be kept ready for inspection by the Insurance Inspector who will be visiting you shortly. Yours faithfully, Sd/- Section Kumar (S. Kumar) For Regional Director 4. The appellant responded vide its letter dated July 23,1982. The appellant responds as under: The Delhi Cloth And General Mills Co. Ltd. Bara Hindu Rao, Delhi 110006 No. AG/JSB/LAW/3115 Dated: July 23, 1982 The Regional Director Employees State Insurance Corporation (Regional Office) EMCA House, 23/23-B Ansari Road Daryaganj, New Delhi. Dear Sir: We acknowledge the receipt of your Demand Notice No. D/Ins.I/11-223-11 dated July 8, 1982 calling upon us to pay a sum of Rs. 18,69,860.75. We would like to point out that the proceedings for the determination for such a demand cannot be taken unilaterally without giving an opportunity to the person affected to show cause against the alleged demand. Also you have referred to your Inspectors report in the letter under reply. Kindly favour us with a correct copy of his report in order to enable us to ascertain the basis of the demand as well as the determination of the amount claimed. Under the circumstances you are requested to issue a show cause notice setting out the nature and basis of the demand and the determination of the amount to enable us to place before you our case. Thanking you, Yours faithfully Sd/- B.D. Pathak Executive Director 5. The respondent responded by closing the dialogue when it issued the communication dated October 18, 1982. The same reads as under: Regd A.D. Regional Office Employees State Insurance Corporation 23/23-B, Emca House, Ansari Road, New Delhi No. 11-223-11 October 18, 1982 To, M/s. The Delhi Cloth and General Mills Co. Ltd. Bara Hindu Rao, Delhi 110006 Subject: Rectification of discrepancies Dear Sir, Kindly refer to your letter No. AG/JSB/LAW dated July 23, 1982 on the subject cited above. Ltd. Bara Hindu Rao, Delhi 110006 Subject: Rectification of discrepancies Dear Sir, Kindly refer to your letter No. AG/JSB/LAW dated July 23, 1982 on the subject cited above. In this connection, I have to state that the contributions have been demanded on the basis of the records produced by you before our Insurance Inspector on March 16, 1982 to March 22, 1982. The details of wages on which the contributions have been claimed, have already been intimated to you vide this office letter dated July 8, 1983. It is also clarified again that Rs. 2,71,593.50 represent Employers Special Contribution on the wages paid to your employees for the period from January 28, 1968 to June 30, 1973 and remaining as Employees Contributions and interest etc. as already mentioned in this office letter dated July 8, 1982. You are, therefore, requested to pay the amount as claimed viae this office letter dated July 8, 1982 within 7 days from the date of issue of this letter, otherwise recovery action of the same would be taken as prescribed under the law. Yours faithfully, sd/- S. Kumar (S. Kumar) for Regional Director 6. Grievance of the appellant before the ESIC Court while challenging the demand raised vide communication dated July 8, 1982 and the rejection of appellants letter dated July 23, 1982 vide communication dated October 18, 1982 was that the communication dated July 8, 1982 was not proceeded by any notice to show cause and that even the alleged inspection report was not supplied. Thus, principles of natural justice were completely violated. 7. Challenging the communication dated October 18, 1982 it was stated that the same suffered from the same taint as was suffered by the earlier communication dated July 8, 1982. 8. Case of the respondent before the learned Judge ESIC Court was that since the 2 communications were based upon the statutory record of the appellant, the appellant could have looked into its statutory record to understand both orders. 9. The learned Judge, ESIC Court has dealt with the arguments as under: 77. As far as the contention of the applicant to the effect that the names and addresses of the workers for whom the contribution has been calculated and claimed is concerned, the same is also of no avail to the applicant. 9. The learned Judge, ESIC Court has dealt with the arguments as under: 77. As far as the contention of the applicant to the effect that the names and addresses of the workers for whom the contribution has been calculated and claimed is concerned, the same is also of no avail to the applicant. The respondents have calculated the contribution on the basis of the total wages paid by the applicant and that figure has been taken from the records of the applicant. The applicants have failed to bring any worth-while evidence to the contrary on the record that the figure of wages calculated by the respondent is incorrect or contrary to the records of the applicant. The entire record is in possession or the applicant and when they put up objections after the calculation of the demand by the respondent, they could have placed the correct figure of the wages before the respondents but they chose not to do so. 10. The learned Judge has also held that initial defect was cured by a post decisional hearing. The findings thereto are as under: 14. It was next argued that the demand has been calculated without giving any opportunity to the applicant to represent against the same. I do not find any merit in this submission also. As per material on the record, the demand has been calculated as per the figure collected from the records of the applicant. After the demand vide Exhibit P-4 was sent to the applicant, the applicant sent a letter Exhibit P-5 dated July 23, 1982 to the respondent. The letter was duly replied to vide Exhibit P-3. The applicant did not offer their books of accounts to the respondent or gave any other details regarding the wrong calculations of the amount. They simply sent a bald letter devoid of any details admitting by implication that the figures were correct and the protest note was a mere formality. If the objections were correct, it must have been supported by a list of documents and extracts from their records. I am fully aware that the principles of natural justice occupies a very important place in our legal system and every person who is to be visited with a penalty, must be given an opportunity to explain the same. This was emphasised by the Honble Supreme Court in Maneka Gandhi v. U.O.I. [1978]2SCR621 . I am fully aware that the principles of natural justice occupies a very important place in our legal system and every person who is to be visited with a penalty, must be given an opportunity to explain the same. This was emphasised by the Honble Supreme Court in Maneka Gandhi v. U.O.I. [1978]2SCR621 . But in the instant case, the figures are calculated as per the information collected from the records of the applicant and they have every opportunity to represent against the same at the time of calculation of the figures. 11. Suffice would it be to note that there has not been any curative post decisional hearing for the reason appellants letter dated July 23, 1982 has been stonewalled by the respondent vide its response dated October 18, 1982. 12. Pertaining to the findings returned by the learned Judge, ESIC Court in para 11 of the impugned order, suffice would it be to state that till appellant was supplied the copy of the, inspection report on which communication dated July 18, 1982 was premised it was impossible for the appellant to have responded to a charge against it of not having properly calculated the wages in respect whereof; contributions were required to be paid as per the respondent. 13. Where a statutory authority proceeds to pass orders against a party in exercise of statutory powers and especially when the process is initiated on the basis of some report or information, the minimum requirement of law is to supply to the opposite party the information or the report on basis whereof action is initiated for only then can the opposite party give a meaningful response to the authority concerned. 14. The appeal is accordingly allowed. 15. Impugned order dated November 3, 2000 passed by the learned single Judge dismissing ESIC Case No. 1790/1982 is set aside. Appellants application under Section 75 of the ESIC Act, 1948 is allowed. 16. Both the communications i.e. the communication dated July 8, 1982 as well as the communication dated October 18, 1982 from the side of the respondent to the appellant are quashed. 17. Proceedings are revived before the Competent Authority under the ESIC Act. Directions are issued to the Authority to supply copy of the inspection report to the appellant who would be granted an opportunity to respond thereto. Hearing would be held as required by law. 18. 17. Proceedings are revived before the Competent Authority under the ESIC Act. Directions are issued to the Authority to supply copy of the inspection report to the appellant who would be granted an opportunity to respond thereto. Hearing would be held as required by law. 18. Permissible material on which appellant has to rely would be taken on record. Likewise it would be open to the Authority to seek production of such record as may be necessary from the appellant. 19. Needless to state, all issues of law and fact would be available to be urged. 20. TCR may be returned forthwith. 21. Bank guarantee submitted by the appellant pursuant to the order dated May 4, 2001 stands discharged. 22. No costs. Appeal allowed