JUDGMENT 1. The petitioner is an industrial establishment at No.7C, SP Industrial Estate, Guindy, Chennai. The petitioner is covered under the Employees State Insurance Act, 1948, bearing Code No.51-36246-67. While so, a show cause notice, dated 14.9.2012 was issued as to why damages as per the provisions of the Regulation 31C of the ESI (General) Regulations, 1950 read with Section 85(B)(1) of the ESI Act, be recovered from the petitioner for the belated remittance of the contribution for the period from 1.4.1982 to 31.3.1991. 2. The petitioner gave a reply, dated 5.10.2012 to the show cause notice, dated 14.9.2012. The same was rejected and the impugned order, dated 28.3.2013 was passed levying damages of Rs.62,563/-. The petitioner has filed this writ petition to quash the aforesaid order. 3. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and Mrs. Jeyakumari, learned counsel for the ESI Corporation. 4. The learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that though an appeal is provided under Section 75 of the ESI Act against the impugned order, this court could exercise its discretion by enquiring into the issues that are raised in this writ petition. The learned counsel for the petitioner has further submitted that there is a long delay in issuing the show cause notice, dated 14.9.2012. Hence, the writ petition could be entertained. 5. The learned counsel for the petitioner has relied on two decisions of this court, namely, Management of Simpson & Co. Vs. E.S.I.C. reported in1999-II-LLJ 1342 (Mad) and Guindy Machine Tools (Private) Ltd., represented by Director, K.G. Subramanian, Madras Vs. Employees' State Insurance Corporation, Madras reported in 2000 (1) LLN 451. 6. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the ESI Corporation has submitted that there is an effective alternate remedy under Section 75 of the ESI Act. There is a separate court to hear the appeal against the impugned order. 7. I have considered the submissions made by either side. According to the petitioner, there is a delay in issuing the proceedings under Section 85(B) of the ESI Act for the belated remittance of contribution for the period from 1982 to 1991. Hence the writ petition could be entertained. 8. It is admitted that there is availability of statutory appeal. There is no blanket ban for this court to entertain the writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution even though there is availability of alternate remedy. Hence the writ petition could be entertained. 8. It is admitted that there is availability of statutory appeal. There is no blanket ban for this court to entertain the writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution even though there is availability of alternate remedy. But it is only a self imposed restriction. It is well settled that only when the impugned order is without jurisdiction or the impugned order was passed in violation of principles of natural justice or the impugned order was passed against Part III of the Constitution, the writ petition could be entertained, even though there is availability of alternate remedy. 9. The learned counsel for the petitioner is not able to bring his case within any of the aforesaid exceptions. On the other hand, it is contended that since there is delay in initiation of proceedings, the writ petition could be entertained. I am not inclined to agree with the submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioner. 10. The judgment relied on by the petitioner in Guindy Machine Tools (Private) Ltd., case (supra) is relating to the order passed under Section 85B of the Act. But, it was not brought to the notice of the court about the availability of the alternate remedy. Further the writ petition was admitted and no counter was filed. Further more, at the time of disposal, the court even thought it fit to mould the relief by reducing the damages by 50% since there was belated initiation of proceedings. 11. Therefore, I am of the view that the said judgment cannot be pressed into service particularly when it is not held therein that the writ petition could be entertained against the order passed under Section 85-B of the ESI Act though an appeal remedy is available. The petitioner can very well approach the appellate court and the appellate court could take note of the issue as to the belated initiation of proceedings and could mould the relief according to the facts of the case. 12. Likewise, Management of Simpson & Co. case (supra) is also relating to the order passed under Section 85-B of the ESI Act. In the said case, the High Court came to the conclusion that the order was passed in violation of principles of natural justice without giving an opportunity. Hence the matter was remanded back to pass a fresh order. 13. case (supra) is also relating to the order passed under Section 85-B of the ESI Act. In the said case, the High Court came to the conclusion that the order was passed in violation of principles of natural justice without giving an opportunity. Hence the matter was remanded back to pass a fresh order. 13. In this case, it is not the case of the petitioner that they were not given an opportunity. In the circumstances, the writ petition fails and the same is dismissed. This order does not preclude the petitioner from filing an appeal before the appellate forum. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.