ORDER : S. Manikumar, J. In W.P. No. 4787 of 2007, Form-C Notice issued u/s 45A of the Employees State Insurance Act, 1948, by the Sub-Regional Office (Madurai), Employees' State Insurance Corporation, calling upon the Petitioner to offer its explanation and to submit a statement or to appear in person or through an authorized representative, as to why a final assessment should not be made towards Employees' contribution for the period 01.10.2006 to 31.03.2007, is challenged in this writ petition. 2. In the impugned notice it is alleged that the Petitioner had not paid the contribution, as per the provisions of law and not submitted returns of contribution, for the period between 01.10.2006 to 31.03.2007, and therefore, the Petitioner has been called upon to show-cause within 15 days from the date of notice, as to why assessment should not be made, as proposed in the said notice. In the said notice, it was further cautioned that if the Petitioner failed to offer any explanation or submitted a statement giving the actual due for the period in question, the department would proceed with the case on merits and appropriate orders would be passed u/s 45A of the Employees State Insurance Act, 1948, determining the amount and contribution due from the Petitioner under the provisions of the Employees State Insurance Act, 1948 and appropriate action would be taken to recover the same as arrears along with interest at the rate of 15% per annum u/s 35(5) of the ESI Act and u/s 45C to 45I of the Act. The said show-cause notice is under challenge in this writ petition. 3. According to the Petitioner, due to recession in the industry, the Mill was closed down and all the workers in the Mill resigned way back as early as 2002. Resignation was also recorded in the conciliation proceedings of the Labour Officer, dated 07.04.2004. However, in order to ensure the value of the Unit does not suffer, it was leased out to M/s. Om Muruga Company Limited. According to the Petitioner, the Petitioner Company is in existence only on record, whereas, all the employees have resigned in the year 2002 itself. 4. However, in order to ensure the value of the Unit does not suffer, it was leased out to M/s. Om Muruga Company Limited. According to the Petitioner, the Petitioner Company is in existence only on record, whereas, all the employees have resigned in the year 2002 itself. 4. The Petitioner has further contended that though a copy of the Conciliation report, dated 07.04.2002, evidencing the above said fact was brought to the notice of the Respondent, the Respondent had mechanically issued orders levying contribution for the period between 01.04.2004 and 31.03.200, which was challenged in W.P. No. 1232 of 2007 and that this Court had granted an order of interim stay. It is the further contention of the writ Petitioner that notwithstanding the interim order granted in the above said writ petition, the Respondent has issued the impugned show-cause notice for the subsequent period between 01.04.2006 and 13.09.2006 and again for the period between October 2006 and March 2007. According to the Petitioner, the authority has failed to consider that contribution from the Petitioner under the Employees State Insurance Act, 1948, does not arise, as the Unit had been closed from March 2002 and all the workers have resigned. It is also contended that the authority had failed to take note of the interim stay granted in W.P. No. 1232 of 2007. 5. Per contra, Mr. R. Ravindran, learned Counsel appearing for the Respondent Corporation, made preliminary objections to the maintainability of the writ petition, on the ground that what is impugned is only a show-cause notice and that writ against a show-cause notice, is not maintainable. 6. In respect of his contention, learned Counsel for the Petitioner placed reliance on the decisions made in The Special Director and Another Vs. Mohd. Ghulam Ghouse and Another, (2004) 3 SCC 440 , in N. Kailasam v. The Bar Council of India represented by its Chairman, New Delhi and Ors. reported in ( 2005 (2) MLJ 44 , M/s. Malladi Drugs and Pharma Ltd v. Union of India reported in ( AIR 2004 SC 4905 ), and Regional Director, Employees' State Insurance Corporation, Chennai v. Nizam's International (represented by its Manager and Power Agent, V. Paranthaman), Madras, reported in (2008 (1) L.L.N. 290). reported in ( 2005 (2) MLJ 44 , M/s. Malladi Drugs and Pharma Ltd v. Union of India reported in ( AIR 2004 SC 4905 ), and Regional Director, Employees' State Insurance Corporation, Chennai v. Nizam's International (represented by its Manager and Power Agent, V. Paranthaman), Madras, reported in (2008 (1) L.L.N. 290). On the merits of the case, learned Counsel for the Respondent further submitted that the Petitioner's Mill at Rajapalayam is covered by the Provisions of the Employees State Insurance Act, 1948 and that they have not properly and punctually complied with the provisions of the Act and the Regulations thereunder. The Petitioner is in huge arrears of contribution etc., and the ESI Corporation has to take action for recovery of the amount. He further submitted that the Petitioner has failed to make contribution for the period from 2004 and failed to submit the accounts. On 09.09.2004, the Petitioner Mill was functioning with 63 employees in a shift and it was alleged that the Mill was leased out to Om. Muruga Company Ltd., from January 2004, but no records were produced. In these circumstances, the Corporation took proceedings u/s 45A of the Act, to determine the Contribution due. A show-cause notice has been issued by the Corporation to the Petitioner for the purpose of determining of contribution due. The Petitioner's representative, who appeared during the personal hearing, did not furnish the particulars of wages paid for the relevant periods and only produced the Accounts, Registers, Records etc., for determination of the contribution. Therefore, after due enquiry, the Corporation has passed four separate orders dated 11.01.2007, u/s 45A of the Act, covering the period from 01/2004 to 3/2004 i.e., for a period of 27 months. According to learned Counsel for the Respondent, the total contribution due as per the 4 separate orders as on the date of filing of the counter affidavit comes to about Rs. 13,48,000/-. He further submitted that the Petitioner has failed to pay the said contribution with interest. 7. Learned Counsel for the Respondent further submitted that if the Petitioner is aggrieved with the determination of contribution for any reason, the Petitioner ought to have filed an appeal u/s 75 of the ESI Act. Therefore, the writ petition challenging the show-cause notice impugned in W.P. No. 4787 of 2007, is not maintainable and liable to be dismissed. 8. 7. Learned Counsel for the Respondent further submitted that if the Petitioner is aggrieved with the determination of contribution for any reason, the Petitioner ought to have filed an appeal u/s 75 of the ESI Act. Therefore, the writ petition challenging the show-cause notice impugned in W.P. No. 4787 of 2007, is not maintainable and liable to be dismissed. 8. Learned Counsel for the Respondent further submitted that for the period (i) between 01.04.2006 and 30.09.2006 and (ii) 01.10.2006 and 31.03.2007, two show-cause notices dated 16.2.2007 and 02.05.2007 respectively were issued granting 15 days time from the date of receipt of the notices to submit the explanation or statement, giving full particulars of the contribution made. Instead of submitting their objections and producing the Accounts, Registers and Records to show the actual wages paid and due for the above said period, the Petitioner has come before this Court. 9. Denying the contention of the Petitioner, that the Mill had been closed and that all the employees had resigned in the year 2002, the Respondent has contended that it is wrong on the part of the Petitioner in relying on the conciliation proceedings for evading contribution. According to the Respondent, even assuming that the alleged resignation of the employees is true, they can be taken back at any moment. According to the Respondent, the averments that the Petitioner Mill has been leased out to 'Om Muruga' has not been proved by furnishing any register, documents or materials. In these circumstances, learned Counsel for the Respondent submitted that the writ petition filed against the show-cause notice, is liable to be dismissed. 10. As regards W.P. No. 1232 of 2007, where an order u/s 45A has been challenged. Mr. Ravindran learned Counsel for the Respondent submitted that the Petitioner's representative, who appeared during personal hearing, did not furnish the particulars of wages paid for the relevant period nor did the Petitioner produce their Accounts, Register, Records, etc., for determination of the contribution. Therefore, after due enquiry, the ESI Corporation, passed four orders, u/s 45A on 11.11.2007, for the following periods: S.NO DATE OF SHOW CAUSE NOTICE DATE OF ORDER PERIOD AMOUNT OF CONTRIBUTION (Rs. ) 1 15.10.2004 11.01.2007 1/2004 TO 3/2004 (3 Months) 1,31,757.00 2 15.10.2004 11.01.2007 4/2004 TO 8/2004 (5 months) 2,53,379.00 3 06.10.2005 11.01.2007 9/2004 to 8/2005 6,08,108.00 4 07.03.2006 11.01.2007 9/2005 to 3/2006 (7 months) 3,54,729.00 11. ) 1 15.10.2004 11.01.2007 1/2004 TO 3/2004 (3 Months) 1,31,757.00 2 15.10.2004 11.01.2007 4/2004 TO 8/2004 (5 months) 2,53,379.00 3 06.10.2005 11.01.2007 9/2004 to 8/2005 6,08,108.00 4 07.03.2006 11.01.2007 9/2005 to 3/2006 (7 months) 3,54,729.00 11. Learned Counsel for the Respondent further submitted that the allegations regarding closure of the Mill, resignation of all the workers, leased of the Mill to one M/s. Om Muruga, are incorrect. He further submitted that the competent authority has considered all the materials before determining the actual contribution to be made by the Petitioner and that there is no manifest illegality. He also submitted that the Petitioner cannot deny the liability to pay the contribution due in view of Section 93A of the Act. For the above said reasons he prayed that both the writ petitions are liable to be dismissed. 12. Heard learned Counsel appearing for the parties and perused the materials available on record. 13. In W.P. No. 1232 of 2007, the Petitioner has challenged the orders passed u/s 45A of the ESI Act, for various periods. The details of the period, for which the contribution was not made and determined by the competent authority are as follows: 1. Failed to pay contribution amount of Rs. 3,85,136/-failed to pay any amount of contributions for the period from January'04 to August 04 which were required to be paid within 21 days of the last day of the calendar month in which the contributions fall due u/s 40 read with Sections 39, 42 and 43 and First Schedule to the Act and Regulation 31 of the ESI (General) Regulations. 2. Failed to submit Return of the contribution in quadruplicate in Form -6 along with the receipted copies of challans in respect of all your employees to the appropriate office within the period stipulated under Regulation 26 of the ESI (General) Regulation in respect of contribution period ended 31.03.2004. 3. Failed to obtain the requisite particulars required for the Declaration Forms and submit the Declaration Forms with Return of Declaration Forms IN DUPLICATE in Form 3 to the appropriate office of the Corporation within stipulated time as required under Regulation 14 of ESI (General) Regulation 1950 read with Section 38 and 44 of ESI Act, 1948. 4. 3. Failed to obtain the requisite particulars required for the Declaration Forms and submit the Declaration Forms with Return of Declaration Forms IN DUPLICATE in Form 3 to the appropriate office of the Corporation within stipulated time as required under Regulation 14 of ESI (General) Regulation 1950 read with Section 38 and 44 of ESI Act, 1948. 4. Failed to produce ledgers and other connected records for the period from 1.4.1995 to 31.3.2004 to our Insurance Inspector for his verification on 9.9.2004 as required u/s 45(2) of the ESI Act. 14. Perusal of the orders passed u/s 45A of the ESI Act, 1948, shows that the Petitioner Mill was required to pay the contribution in accordance with Section 40 of the Act r/w Regulations 29 and 31 of the Employees' State Insurance (General) Regulation, 1950 framed under the Act. As the employer had failed to pay the contribution, as required under law, four separate show-cause notices were issued for the above said period, calling upon the Petitioner to submit their objections as to why the contribution shown thereunder should not be recovered from the employer. The Petitioner was offered sufficient opportunities to represent their case in person at the time of personal hearing on 05.11.2004, 15. Perusal of the order dated 11.01.2007 in respect of the above said four periods, shows that inspite of sufficient opportunities of personal hearing, each time, the Petitioner has either requested for postponement or assured that the details of the compliance made would be submitted. The details of the personal hearing offered to the writ Petitioner are as follow: 1. C-18 Adhoc (6/88/04) dt.15.10.2004 (1/2004 to 3/2004) Rs. 1,31,757/- 05.11.2005, 10.11.2005 and 18.04.2006. 2. C-18 Adhoc (689/04) dt.15.10.2004 (4/2004 to 8/2004) Rs. 2,53,379/-05.11.2005, 10.11.2005 and 18.04.2006. 3. C-18 Adhoc (58/05) dt.06.10.2005 (9/2005 to 8/2005) Rs. 6,08,108/ 10.11.2005 - Attended Personal Hearing and assured to submit details on 15.12.2005 15.12.2005 - Sent Telegraphic request for postponement. 10.01.2006 - Postponed to 18.01.06 18.01.2006 - Attended and requested for time upto 13.02.2006 13.02.2006 - Attended and assured to submit details on 1st week of April 4. C-18 Adhoc (91/06) dt.07.03.2006 (9/05 to 3/06) Rs. 3,54,729/ 18.04.2006 - Attended and sought timeupto 22.05.2006. 22.05.2006 - Attended and requested for further time. Assured to produce details in Proforma given by letter dated 23.05.06 by 6.6.06. C-18 Adhoc (91/06) dt.07.03.2006 (9/05 to 3/06) Rs. 3,54,729/ 18.04.2006 - Attended and sought timeupto 22.05.2006. 22.05.2006 - Attended and requested for further time. Assured to produce details in Proforma given by letter dated 23.05.06 by 6.6.06. 05.06.2006 - Attended and submitted partial details and sought time upto 19.06.06 17.06.2006 - Vide Telegram sought time for one more month. 16. After giving sufficient opportunity as stated supra, as the Petitioner has consistently and deliberately failed to produce the records, the authority had determined the contribution for the above said period u/s 45A of the ESI Act and accordingly, passed order dated 11.01.2007, directing the Petitioner to pay the contribution within 15 days from the date of receipt of a copy of the order and in default, the Petitioner was cautioned that appropriate action would be taken for recovery u/s 45C to 45I of the ESI Act through the process of recovery. 17. Though the Petitioner has contended that the Mill had been closed in 2002 and that all the employees have already resigned, which was also recorded in the conciliation proceedings of the Labour Officer, the said fact has been disputed by the Respondents. It is further contended that no register, documents or any other materials was placed before the authority to substantiate the alleged pleas. It is well settled that disputed questions on law cannot be gone into in writ proceedings. 18. Section 75 of the EST Act, provides a statutory remedy before the Employees Insurance Court, if there is any question and dispute arising as to whether any person is employed within the meaning of this Act and whether is liable to pay the Employees contribution and for such other matters. As per Section 77, a review application before the Employees Insurance Court shall be made within a period of three years from the date, which the cause of action arose. In the case on hand, admittedly, the Petitioner, without availing the alternative remedy provided under the Act, has approached this Court and obtained interim orders of further proceedings. As per Section 77, a review application before the Employees Insurance Court shall be made within a period of three years from the date, which the cause of action arose. In the case on hand, admittedly, the Petitioner, without availing the alternative remedy provided under the Act, has approached this Court and obtained interim orders of further proceedings. Likewise, when a show-cause notice under F-C-18 was issued u/s 45A of the ESI Act, calling upon the Petitioner to show-cause within 15 days from the date of receipt of the said notice, as to why an assessment should not be made for the period between 01.10.2006 and 31.03.2007 and after submitting a letter dated 12.05.2007 to the Deputy Director, ESI Corporation, Madurai, the Petitioner has rushed to this Court on 21.05.2007 filing W.P. No. 4787 of 2007, on 21.05.2007. 19. It is now well settled that the Writ against a show-cause notice is maintainable or not is well settled in the judgments in The Special Director and Another Vs. Mohd. Ghulam Ghouse and Another, (2004) 3 SCC 440 , inN. Kailasam v. The Bar Council of India represented by its chairman, New Delhi and Ors. reported in (2005(2)MLJ 44. 20. In Regional Director, Employees' State Insurance Corporation v. Nizam's International reported in 2008 (1) L.L.N.290, a show-cause notice was issued to the employer u/s 45A of the ESI Act, calling upon the employer to offer explanation as to why a proposed order should not be passed towards contribution of certain sum. The said notice was challenged before the E.S.I. Court. Without framing any issue as to the maintainability of the O.P., the E.S.I. Court decided the correctness of the show-cause notice and after going into the merits of the case allowed O.P. The decision of ESI Court was challenged in this Court. Going through the statutory provisions of the Act and the Rules framed thereunder, this Court has set aside the order of the E.S.I. Court under para 14, which reads as follows: 14. The order passed by the E.S.I. Court challenging C18 notice having now been set aside, the Petitioner is bound to give reply to the C18 notices to the subsequent periods. The order passed by the E.S.I. Court challenging C18 notice having now been set aside, the Petitioner is bound to give reply to the C18 notices to the subsequent periods. Since the impugned orders in these writ petitions are passed u/s 45A without getting reply from the Petitioners in view of the earlier order of the E.S.I. Court, I am of the view that interest of the justice would be met by setting aside the orders passed u/s 45A, which are impugned in these writ petitions with a direction to the E.S.I. Corporation to issue fresh notices under for (sic) C18. Get objections from the writ Petitioners , and if it is not convincing fresh orders can be passed u/s 45A of the E.S.I. Act, in accordance with law. It is also made clear that if any adverse order is passed by the E.S.I. Corporation (sic), the writ-Petitioner can file appeal u/s 75 of the E.S.I. Act. 21. In view of the above said decisions, the writ petition in W.P. No. 4587 of 2007 filed against the show-cause notice issued u/s 45A, is liable to the dismissed as not maintainable and accordingly dismissed. 22. W.P. No. 1232 of 2007, challenging the order passed u/s 45A of the E.S.I. Act is appelable and therefore, this writ petition is also dismissed. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions are also dismissed. No costs.