JUDGMENT Hon’ble Sudhanshu Dhulia, J. (Oral) 1. Heard Mr. Vipul Sharma, Advocate for the petitioner, Mr. C. K. Sharma, Advocate for the respondent nos.1 & 2 / Employees’ State Insurance Corporation and Mr. Lalit Sharma, Advocate for the respondent no.3/I.C.I.C.I. Bank. 2. The petitioner has challenged the proceedings initiated against him by respondent nos.1& 2 under the Employees’ State Insurance Act, 1948 (hereinafter referred to as the Act). 3. The impugned orders dated 13.07.2004 and 19.08.2004 are annexed as Annexure-5 to the writ petition. These orders were passed under Section 45A of the Act, which reads as under: “45-A. Determination of contributions in certain cases. – (1) Where in respect of a factory or establishment no returns, particulars, registers or records are submitted, furnished or maintained in accordance with the provisions of section 44 or any Inspector or other official of the Corporation referred to in sub-section (2) of section 45 is prevented in any manner by the principal or immediate employer or any other person, in exercising his functions or discharging his duties under section 45, the Corporation may, on the basis of information available to it, by order, determine the amount of contributions payable in respect of the employees of that factory or establishment: Provided that no such order shall be passed by the Corporation unless the principal or immediate employer or the person in charge of the factory or establishment has been given a reasonable opportunity of being heard. (2) An order made by the Corporation under sub-section (1) shall be sufficient proof of the claim of the Corporation under section 75 or for recovery of the amount determined by such order as an arrear of land revenue under section 45B or recovery under sections 45C to 45I.” 4. A preliminary objection has been raised by Mr. C. K. Sharma, learned counsel for the respondent nos.1 & 2 that the petitioner has an alternative remedy to raise his grievance before the Employees’ Insurance Court, which is presently constituted and is functioning as the Civil Judge (Senior Division), Haldwani, Nainital. He has also referred to Section 75 (g) of the Act, which reads as follows : “75. Matters to be decided by Employees’ Insurance Court - (1) If any question or dispute arises as to - (a) ………. (b) ………. (c) ……….. (d) ……….. (e) ……….. (ee) ………. He has also referred to Section 75 (g) of the Act, which reads as follows : “75. Matters to be decided by Employees’ Insurance Court - (1) If any question or dispute arises as to - (a) ………. (b) ………. (c) ……….. (d) ……….. (e) ……….. (ee) ………. (g) any other matter which is in dispute between a principal employer and the Corporation, or between a principal employer and an immediate employer or between a person and the Corporation or between an employee and a principal or immediate employer, in respect of any contribution or benefit or other dues payable or recoverable under this Act, or any other matter required to be or which may be decided by the Employees’ Insurance Court under this Act, such question or dispute subject to the provisions of sub-section (2A) shall be decided by the Employees’ Insurance Court in accordance with the provisions of this Act.” 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that he is conscious of the aforesaid provision but submits that the impugned orders have been passed without giving an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner. Since it was passed without giving an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner, it is in violation of the principles of natural justice and fair play and in such a case the bar of an alternative remedy does not remain. This court, however, has perused the impugned orders, which clearly state that before issuing the impugned orders, a notice was given to the petitioner on 07.11.2003 i.e. 8 months in advance. The petitioner was given an opportunity to place his case before the Corporation, but, he failed to do so. Moreover, the details of this aspect has been mentioned in para 3 of the counter affidavit. It has been stated in the counter affidavit that the petitioner’s request dated 06.12.2003 for adjournment was considered by the Corporation and the matter was adjourned to 02.02.2004, but, he failed to turn up and, even on further dates, he failed to appear. Therefore, the respondent / Corporation has no other option, but to pass the impugned orders. Therefore, it cannot be said that the orders were passed without giving an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner. This Court is also of the considered opinion that the petitioner presently has an alternative remedy before the Employees’ Insurance Court. Therefore, the respondent / Corporation has no other option, but to pass the impugned orders. Therefore, it cannot be said that the orders were passed without giving an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner. This Court is also of the considered opinion that the petitioner presently has an alternative remedy before the Employees’ Insurance Court. As such, the writ petition is dismissed on the ground of alternative remedy. In case, such dispute is raised before the Employee’s Insurance Court, the court while condoning the delay in the matter may also consider the fact that the writ petition remained pending for a period of about 4 years before this Court. 6. The writ petition is therefore dismissed. 7. No order as to costs.