Voluntary transfer and alternative remedy principles led the High Court to quash attachment and grant writ relief.

A sale conducted by a statutory corporation in recovery proceedings was not treated as a voluntary transfer by the former employer, so the purchaser was not saddled with liability for the previous occupier's dues under the Employees' State Insurance Act. The existence of an alternative remedy under Section 75 did not bar writ relief, because writ jurisdiction is not excluded merely by the availability of a statutory forum and the dispute had already remained unresolved for years on a settled legal issue. The impugned attachment was therefore quashed and full writ relief granted.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether a purchaser at a sale held by a statutory corporation for recovery of dues can be treated as having effected a voluntary transfer so as to attract liability for the previous employer's dues under the Employees' State Insurance Act, 1948. (ii) Whether the availability of an alternative remedy under Section 75 of the Employees' State Insurance Act, 1948 justified refusing writ relief.

Issue (i): Whether a purchaser at a sale held by a statutory corporation for recovery of dues can be treated as having effected a voluntary transfer so as to attract liability for the previous employer's dues under the Employees' State Insurance Act, 1948.

Analysis: The property was sold by the statutory corporation in exercise of its recovery powers, and not by any voluntary act of transfer on the part of the former employer. The Court accepted the view taken by other High Courts that such a sale cannot be equated with a voluntary transfer and therefore the consequences contemplated by the corresponding liability provisions do not attach to the purchaser.

Conclusion: The petitioner was not liable to discharge the previous occupier's dues on the footing of a voluntary transfer.

Issue (ii): Whether the availability of an alternative remedy under Section 75 of the Employees' State Insurance Act, 1948 justified refusing writ relief.

Analysis: Although an alternate statutory forum was pointed out, the Court held that the existence of such a remedy is not an absolute bar to writ jurisdiction. Since the dispute had already remained pending for several years and the legal issue was no longer res integra, the Court found it unnecessary to relegate the petitioner to that remedy.

Conclusion: The writ petition was maintainable and the objection based on alternative remedy was rejected.

Final Conclusion: The impugned attachment was quashed and the petitioner obtained full writ relief, with the ancillary interim application rendered infructuous.

Ratio Decidendi: A sale effected by a statutory corporation in recovery proceedings is not a voluntary transfer by the former employer, and the existence of an alternative statutory remedy does not bar writ relief where the issue is settled and relegation would serve no useful purpose.

---