Judgment : Oral Judgment: Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. The petition is heard finally with the consent of the learned counsel for the parties. 2. By this petition, the petitioner impugns the order passed by the Employees Insurance Court on 13.9.2007 holding that the application filed by the respondent no.1 stood disposed of as the proceedings were infructuous. 3. The order was passed by the petitioner against the respondent no.1 under section 85 (B) of the E.S.I. Act 1948 on 26.2.2002 imposing damages of Rs.22685/-for the delayed payment of contribution for the period from April 1991 to March 1992 and April 1993 to September 1993. The respondent no.1 challenged the order dated 26.2.2002 before the Employees Insurance Court, Nagpur in Insurance Case No.3/2004. The petitioner filed written statement and denied the claim of the respondent no.1. It appears that during the pendency of the proceedings before the Employees Insurance Court, two communications dated 30.10.2006 were issued by the petitioner to the respondent no.1. It was stated in the first communication dated 30.10.2006 that the respondent no.1 has already paid the dues sought by the orders dated 2.7.1993, 22.1.1995, and 3.5.1993. By the second communication dated 30.10.2006, the respondent n.1 was asked to approach the petitioner authority if it wanted to avail an opportunity of amnesty in regard to Criminal Case No. 1206/1991, 1652/1992, E.I. Case No.3/2004 pertaining to the levy of the damages. It further appears that the respondent no.1 merely produced these two communications before the Employees Insurance Court to state that the matter has become infructuous as the dues were already paid to the petitioner. The Employees Insurance Court by the impugned order dated 14.9.2007 disposed of the application filed by the respondent no.1 on the ground that the proceedings had become infructuous in view of the communications dated 30.10.2006 showing that the dues had been paid by the respondent no.1 to the petitioner. The court further permitted the respondent no.1 to withdraw the amount deposited by the respondent no.1 in the court. 4. Mrs. B.P. Maldhure, the learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the Employees Insurance Court was not justified in holding that the proceedings had become infructuous in view of the payment of dues which were reflected from the two communications dated 30.10.2006. 4. Mrs. B.P. Maldhure, the learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the Employees Insurance Court was not justified in holding that the proceedings had become infructuous in view of the payment of dues which were reflected from the two communications dated 30.10.2006. According to the learned counsel for the petitioner, the first communication dated 30.10.2006 merely referred to the payment of dues in terms of the orders dated 2.7.1993, 22.11.1995 and 3.5.1993. Since the order dated 26.2.2002 imposing damages was challenged by the respondent no.1 before the Employees Insurance Court, according to the learned counsel for the petitioner it was clear from the first document that those dues were not paid by the respondent no.1. By referring to the second document, it is pointed out on behalf of the petitioner that it is merely in the form of a proposal furnished, to the respondent no.1 and the Employees Insurance Court was not justified in holding on the basis of these two communications that in view of the payment of dues the proceedings had become infructuous. 5. Shri Dandekar, the learned counsel for the respondent no.1 submitted that the respondent no.1 had not made any application before the court for withdrawal of the application. When the two documents dated 30.10.2006 were produced before the court, the court was of the opinion that the controversy in the matter was resolved as dues were paid. The learned counsel for the respondent no.1 submitted that the petitioner is free to recover the amount of dues from the respondent no.1 in case they are still payable by the respondent no.1. It is submitted that the respondent no.1 has in fact cleared all the dues of the petitioner. 6. On hearing the learned counsel for the parties and on perusal of the impugned order dated 14.9.2007 along with communication dated 30.10.2006, it appears that the Employees Insurance Court committed an error in holding that the proceedings filed by the respondent no.1 had become infructuous in view of the payment of dues. The first communication dated 30.10.2006 did not refer to the order dated 26.2.2002 imposing damages and referred to the orders dated 2.7.1993, 22.11.1995 and 3.5.1993. The first communication dated 30.10.2006 did not refer to the order dated 26.2.2002 imposing damages and referred to the orders dated 2.7.1993, 22.11.1995 and 3.5.1993. Second communication dated 30.10.2006 was merely in the form of a proposal asking the respondent no.1 to approach the petitioner on following certain conditions and this communication did not by any stretch of imagination show that the respondent no.1 had already paid the damages which were payable in terms of the order dated 26.2.2002. The respondent no.1 had neither made an application for withdrawal of the E.I. Case No.3/2004 nor had filed any application for disposing of the case as infructuous. Merely on the basis of the two communications the Employees Insurance Court should not have held that the proceeding had been rendered infructuous in view of the payment of the dues. It was necessary for the Employees Insurance Court to decide whether the dues were actually paid or not. 7. In the result, the impugned order passed by the Employees Insurance Court on 14.7.2007 is hereby quashed and set aside. The matter is remanded to the Employees Insurance Court to decide the E.I. Case No.3/2004 on merits in accordance with law. 8. Rule is made absolute in the aforesaid terms with no order as to costs.