ESI contribution recovery remains enforceable despite BIFR pendency, with statutory interest payable on delayed contributions.

Pendency of BIFR proceedings did not bar recovery of Employees' State Insurance contributions, because section 22 of the Sick Industrial Companies Act was held not to prevent enforcement of dues under the ESI Act. A writ challenge to a section 45A determination was not maintained where the statutory dispute remedy under section 75 was available and not pursued, leaving the determination enforceable for recovery. Interest on delayed contribution was also held payable as a statutory and automatic liability under section 39(5), unaffected by prior litigation, stay orders, or requests for instalments. The statutory recovery proceedings and interest demand were sustained.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the pendency of proceedings before the BIFR barred recovery of contributions under the Employees' State Insurance Act, 1948; (ii) whether the writ petition could be maintained to challenge the determination made under section 45A when the statutory remedy under section 75 was available; (iii) whether interest was leviable on delayed payment notwithstanding prior litigation, stay orders, or requests for instalment payment.

Issue (i): Whether the pendency of proceedings before the BIFR barred recovery of contributions under the Employees' State Insurance Act, 1948.

Analysis: The statutory immunity under section 22 of the Sick Industrial Companies (Special Provisions) Act, 1985 was held not to obstruct enforcement of dues under the ESI Act. The pendency of BIFR proceedings does not prevent the Corporation from proceeding under the ESI Act for recovery of contributions determined against the principal employer.

Conclusion: The bar under section 22 of the Sick Industrial Companies (Special Provisions) Act, 1985 did not help the petitioner; the issue was decided against the assessee.

Issue (ii): Whether the writ petition could be maintained to challenge the determination made under section 45A when the statutory remedy under section 75 was available.

Analysis: The order under section 45A was treated as a summary determination that becomes enforceable unless the aggrieved employer invokes the statutory dispute mechanism under section 75. Where such remedy is available and not pursued, the determination attains finality for recovery purposes and the writ route is not an appropriate substitute for the prescribed forum.

Conclusion: The challenge to the section 45A determination in writ jurisdiction was not accepted; the issue was decided against the assessee.

Issue (iii): Whether interest was leviable on delayed payment notwithstanding prior litigation, stay orders, or requests for instalment payment.

Analysis: Interest under section 39(5) of the ESI Act was treated as a statutory and automatic consequence of delayed contribution. The existence of stay orders in related proceedings, the pendency of disputes, or the absence of consensual settlement could not extinguish or waive the statutory liability to pay interest. The distinction between interest and damages was maintained, with waiver being relevant, if at all, only to damages and not to interest.

Conclusion: Interest was held payable on the delayed contribution and the issue was decided against the assessee.

Final Conclusion: The petition was held to be misconceived, and the statutory recovery proceedings and interest demand were sustained, leaving only the prescribed remedy under section 75 open for any other disputed liability.

Ratio Decidendi: Pendency of BIFR proceedings does not bar recovery under the ESI Act, a section 45A determination must be challenged through the statutory forum under section 75, and interest on delayed contributions is a mandatory statutory liability not waived by stay orders or private arrangement.

---