JUDGMENT : Shree Chandrashekhar, J. I.A. No. 4783 of 2016 The instant application stands dismissed as not pressed. I.A. No. 4784 of 2016 This application has been filed by one Satawan Kamat, an employee working in the canteen of the appellant Company. He claims himself a representative of the workmen working in the canteen, however, no authorisation on behalf of the other workmen has been produced along with the application for intervention. The workmen were not party before the Writ Court and in view of the dispute raised by the writ petitioner, their presence was not even necessary, and hence, the present application is dismissed. I.A. No. 5418 of 2016 The instant application stands allowed, as prayed for. The annexed documents are taken on record and they shall form part of the memo of appeal. L.P.A. No. 311 of 2016 The grievance of the appellant writ petitioner (hereinafter referred to as “petitioner”) before the Writ Court was in respect of order dated 31.05.2016 which discloses liability of the petitioner to the tune of Rs.1,64,46,460/as ESI dues for the period between July 2010 to May 2015 with interest upto 24.05.2016. Consequent upon communication dated 31.05.2016 to the Recovery Officer, order dated 14.06.2016 was passed directing the General Manager (ER,W & CSR), M/s Tata Motors Limited, Jamshedpur to remit Rs. 1,64,69,615/from the account of the petitioner Company for satisfying the aforesaid ESI dues. The order of assessment was passed on 17.08.2015. 2. Mr. V.P. Singh, the learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner reiterating the stand taken before the Writ Court, submits that order passed by the respondent Corporation under Section 45A of the Employees State Insurance Act, 1948 has been passed without hearing the petitioner Company. It is submitted that no notice was issued by the officer of the Corporation before a final determination of contribution for which the petitioner Company is liable has been made. Referring to orders passed in W.P.(C) No. 6970 of 2006 and W.P.(C) No. 122 of 2010, the learned Senior Counsel submits that before the application of the petitioner filed under Section 87 of 1948 Act is decided, no order under Section 45A can be passed. Per contra, Mr. Referring to orders passed in W.P.(C) No. 6970 of 2006 and W.P.(C) No. 122 of 2010, the learned Senior Counsel submits that before the application of the petitioner filed under Section 87 of 1948 Act is decided, no order under Section 45A can be passed. Per contra, Mr. Ashutosh Anand, the learned counsel for the respondent Employees State Insurance Corporation supporting the impugned order dated 04.07.2016 passed in W.P.(C) No. 3358 of 2016 submits that the plea of “no notice” taken by the petitioner is seriously disputed by the Corporation by producing dispatch registers etc. It is submitted that inspite of a limited protection granted by the Writ Court, the petitioner failed to render accounts for several years and, in fact, the exemption application filed by the petitioner does not cover whole of the period, for which order under Section 45A has been passed. 3. In so far as, the plea taken by the petitioner that no notice was served upon it, we find that taking note of the various documents placed on record by the respondent Corporation, the learned Writ Court recorded a prima-facie satisfaction as to service of notice upon the petitioner, before order under Section 45A was passed. The learned Writ Court has dealt with this issue in the following words: 5. “Learned counsel for the respondent Corporation refers to the contents of their counter affidavit. Taking the Court through the chronology of facts, it is stated that petitioner has in his supplementary affidavit accepted receipt of letter dated 17.6.2015 calling upon him to pay the contribution, which is Annexure14 to his supplementary affidavit. Learned counsel for the respondent Corporation has sought to dispel the contention regarding the lack of service upon petitioner of the letters dated 20.7.2015, Annexure-A series and the order of assessment dated 17.8.2015, Annexure-B series passed under section 45 A of the ESIC Act, 1948 by referring to the extract of the dispatch register and the receipts of the registry enclosed thereto under which the same were dispatched to the petitioner. It has also been pointed out that these letters were dispatched not only to the petitioner but also to his other partners. Petitioner therefore cannot feign ignorance of the assessment proceeding. It has also been pointed out that these letters were dispatched not only to the petitioner but also to his other partners. Petitioner therefore cannot feign ignorance of the assessment proceeding. Reference is also made on the letter, Annexue-C dated 25.5.2016 which is in relation to initiation of recovery proceeding under Section 45 C to 45 I of the ESIC Act, 1948 addressed by the Assistant Director of the Corporation to Recovery Officer with copy to the petitioner and other partners. According to him, the said letter has also been dispatched to the petitioner as per the extract of the dispatched letter enclosed thereto. Learned counsel for the respondent Corporation also submits that these documents maintained in the ordinary course of business in the performance of statutory duties by the ESI authority should be treated as prima facie service of notice as presumption of regularity is attached to official proceeding.........” 4. After going through the materials produced by the petitioner in the present proceeding and the Writ Court records, we do not find any infirmity in the approach of the learned Writ Court, while rejecting petitioner's plea that no notice was served upon it. The prima-facie satisfaction recorded by the Writ Court of service of notice upon the petitioner is pursuant to a limited enquiry by the Writ Court on the basis of the materials produced before the Writ Court. 5. The plea taken by the petitioner that during the pendency of its application under Section 87, final determination under Section 45A could not have been done is also liable to be rejected. The plea taken by the petitioner that principal employer namely, M/s Tata Motors Limited has been providing better facilities to the employees and therefore, it is not liable under the Employees' State Insurance Act, 1948, are the issues which do not curtail the power of the Corporation to pass an order under Section 45A. It is an admitted position that the petitioner did not submit return for more than 5 years. It is an admitted position that the petitioner did not submit return for more than 5 years. The respondent Corporation has taken a plea that the exemption application is required to be filed each year and that too, prior in time which was not done by the petitioner inasmuch as, the exemption application for the period 2007 to 2012 was filed in the year, 2012 and for subsequent period also it has not been filed in time and therefore, mere pendency of its application filed under Section 87 was not a bar on determination under Section 45A. 6. At this stage, we refrain from commenting upon the merits of the application filed by the petitioner under Section 87, however, we are of the opinion that mere pendency of the aforesaid application would not clothe the petitioner with a right to shortcircuit the alternative remedy provided under the Act. Considering the object of the Employees' State Insurance Act, 1948 which has been once again reiterated by the Supreme Court in “Royal Western India Turf Club Limited Vs. Employees' State Insurance Corporation & Ors.” (2016) 4 SCC 521 ; “the Act is a welfare legislation and is required to be interpreted so as to ensure extension of benefits to the employees and not to deprive them of the same which are available under the Act”, the petitioner must avail the alternative remedy as provided under the Act. 7. The writ petition was dismissed primarily on the ground of availability of alternative remedy to the petitioner. We are of the opinion that before the Appellate Authority, the petitioner may lead further such evidence to show that in fact, no effective opportunity was granted to it before an order under Section 45A was passed. From the impugned order dated 04.07.2016, it appears that on the request of the learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner, the Writ Court permitted the petitioner to file the appeal within two weeks from 04.07.2016 and for such period of two weeks the respondents were restrained from taking coercive measures for realisation of the outstanding dues. From the impugned order dated 04.07.2016, it appears that on the request of the learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner, the Writ Court permitted the petitioner to file the appeal within two weeks from 04.07.2016 and for such period of two weeks the respondents were restrained from taking coercive measures for realisation of the outstanding dues. Taking note of the fact that the assessment years in the application cover a part of the period for which exemption applications have been filed, we are inclined to modify the order passed by the learned Writ Court to the extent that no coercive steps shall be taken against the petitioner Company for the next eight weeks from 29.08.2016, when the parties shall appear before the respondent no. 1, and the respondent no. 1 shall take a final decision on the application/applications filed by the petitioner Company within four weeks. 8. Considering the aforesaid aspects of the matter, it is made clear that the outcome of the exemption applications under Section 87 filed by the petitioner shall be duly considered by the Appellate Authority in the appeal, which shall be preferred by the petitioner within next four weeks after order under Section 87 is passed by the respondent no. 1. The impugned order dated 04.07.2016 stands affirmed, however, with the aforesaid modification.