JUDGMENT : 1. The ESI Corporation has issued recovery proceedings by the impugned order dated 24.07.2013. Learned counsel for the petitioner has stated that there was no order passed under Section 45(A) of the ESI Act directing the petitioner to pay contribution. Only after passing order under Section 45(A) of the ESI Act, if the petitioner fails to remit the amount, then the Corporation could take coercive method like passing the impugned order. To ascertain the same, the matter is listed today. 2. Today the learned counsel for the Corporation has fairly submitted that though the order was passed under Section 45(A) of the ESI Act, the same was set aside by this Court and the matter was remanded to ESI to pass a fresh order and thereafter, no fresh order was passed. It is stated that the Writ Petitioner is dragging on in this matter and therefore, they are not able to pass any order. 3. In these circumstances, I am of the view that the Corporation is not correct in passing the impugned recovery order without passing a fresh order under Section 45(A) of the ESI Act in the manner known to law. Hence, the impugned order is set aside and the Writ Petition is allowed. No order as to costs. Consequently, the Connected Miscellaneous Petitions is closed.