31.07.2026
Heard Shri S. P. Das, learned counsel for the petitioners. Also heard Ms. L.
Devi, learned CGC as well as Shri M. Smith, learned Standing Counsel, ESIC.
2. Considering the nature of the order proposed to be passed, notices upon
the respondent nos. 4 & 5 are not required at this stage.
3. The petitioners are aggrieved by the action of putting a lien/freezing of the
Bank accounts. It is contended that the petitioner no. 1 is one of the Directors
of petitioner no. 2, Company and the sole proprietor of the petitioner no. 3. The
petitioner no. 2 – Company which was incorporated on 18.10.2022 however has
claimed to be in a dormant state since its inception and does not fall under the
ESI Act, 1948. It is also contended that the authorities of the ESIC never visited
the Office of the Company for any physical verification. However, Demand
Notice dated 04.05.2026 and Prohibitory orders dated 06.07.2026 have been
issued directing payment of contribution of Rs. 1,71,525/- to the ESIC.
Thereafter, the impugned action of putting the bank accounts of the petitioners
on lien has been taken. The learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted
that since the petitioner no. 2 – Company was in a dormant state, there was no
obligation under the ESIC Act, 1948 and therefore, the entire demand and the
subsequent action of freezing the accounts are illegal and arbitrary.
