Judgment : The petitioner has come forward to challenge the pre-attachment notice dated 17.1.2005 issued by the respondents ESI Corporation. The Recovery Officer informed the petitioner that the notice was issued for non-payment of ESI Dues and the recovery team will visit his area. The petitioner was directed to clear the dues before the date of visit failing which the subsequent execution proceedings will be initiated against the petitioner. 2. The petitioner moved this Court and the Writ Petition was admitted on 18.4.2005. Pending the Writ Petition, this Court granted interim injunction on the same day. 3. It is seen from the records the claim of the petitioner was that the dues have to be paid by M/s.Balaji Castings and not by the petitioner, who was the Managing Director of M/s.Excel Foundries, who are the principal employer under whose premises M/s.Balaji Castings was functioning. The petitioner also sent a letter to the Recovery Officer on 15.10.2004 bringing all these facts to his attention. Even before any order is passed by the respondents, anticipating further action by the respondents, the Writ Petition came to be filed. This Court is not inclined to entertain the Writ Petition at this stage as it is pre-mature and no injury is suffered by the petitioner. 4. Mr.M.R.Raghavan, learned counsel for the petitioner placing reliance upon the judgment of the Supreme Court in ESI Corporation vs. Gurdial Singh and others reported in 1991 (2) Labour Law Journal 425 would contend that the Directors cannot be treated as owners of the factory and the liability can be fastened only on the company. 5. For the very same purpose, he also relied upon Bombay High Court judgment in C.K.Gupta and another vs. Employees State Insurance Corporation and others reported in 1999 (2) LLN 163 and Calcutta High Court judgment in R.L.Kanoria and others vs. State and another reported in 2003-III-LLJ 433. 5. However, it must be noted that the power of execution is provided for recovering dues under Section 45-B to 45-I of the ESI Act, which is inserted by Central Act 29 of 1989 with effect from 1.9.1991. Section 45-H applies to the Second and Third Schedules to the Income Tax Act, 1961 for the purpose of recovering the arrears with necessary modification. 6. Section 45-H applies to the Second and Third Schedules to the Income Tax Act, 1961 for the purpose of recovering the arrears with necessary modification. 6. The Schedule 2 to the Income Tax Act makes an elaborate procedure for attachment and sale and recovery of the amount due to the State. The Recovery Officer under Schedule 2 Rule 11 has been given power to investigate with reference to the properties and whether they are liable for attachment or sale. In case of any attachment, if any objection is received, the Recovery Officer is also empowered to postpone the sale for investigating the claim and objection with such properties and also if he is satisfied that claim or objection with such properties are not liable for attachment and it has been in possession of the defaulter or some other person in trust for him or in the occupancy of a tenant or other person paying rent for him, then he can release the property from attachment or sale. When there is inbuilt safeguard provided for a wrongful attachment or sale, it is unnecessary to entertain the Writ Petition on speculative basis that the petitioner was Director of some other company and the real liability falls on some other company and his properties are not liable for attachment. This Court is not inclined to entertain the Writ Petition. The citations relied on by the petitioner do not apply to the facts on hand. 7. Hence, the Writ Petition stands dismissed. No costs. The connected Miscellaneous Petition is closed.