JUDGMENT Arun Tandan, J.
1. Heard Sri Satish Chaturvedi, Advocate, on behalf of the petitioner, Sri P. K. Asthana, Advocate, on behalf of respondent Nos. 1 and 2, and learned standing counsel, on behalf of respondent No. 3.
2. The Regional Director, Employees State Insurance Court, Ghaziabad passed an order dated 11.11.1985 demanding an amount from the petitioner, employers to the tune of Rs. 35,035.00 plus interest of Rs. 37,34.30 towards their contribution under Employees State Insurance Act. Against the said order, the employers filed the case in the Court of Employees State Insurance, Court Ghaziabad, being Case No. 181 of 1983, under Section 75 of the Employees State Insurance Act, 1948. In the said suit the employers had also filed an application for waiver of the deposit of 15% of the disputed amount as required under Section 75(1B). The said waiver application has been rejected by Employees State Insurance Court, Ghaziabad by means of a non-speaking order dated 20.6.1986. Against this order the present writ petition has been filed.
3. On behalf of the petitioner it is contended that under proviso to Section 75(2B) it is mandatory that the Court has to pass the order in writing supported by reasons. The order dated 20.6.1986 is one line order which contains no reason and as such liable to be set aside.
4. On behalf of the respondents it is contended that petitioner has got an efficacious alternative remedy by way of appeal under Section 82 of the Act. The petitioner has not availed the same. The petition is liable to be dismissed.
5. Although the petitioner has a remedy under Section 82 of the Act against the order dated 20.6.1986, this Court is not inclined to dismiss the writ petition at this stage on the ground of alternative remedy. Inasmuch as the writ petition was entertained by this Court and was admitted on 8.3.1991, an interim order was also granted in favour of the petitioner. After a lapse of more than 18 years, dismissal of the writ petition on the ground of alternative remedy is not warranted under law.
6. So far as the order dated 20.6.1986 is concerned, it is apparent from the record that it contains no reason. There has been manifest non-compliance of the requirements of the provisions of proviso to Section 75(2B) of the Act. The order as such cannot be sustained. The order is hereby set aside. The application filed by the petitioner be decided in accordance with law after affording opportunity to the parties concerned at the earliest, preferably within three months from the date a certified copy of this order is filed before it.
7. The writ petition is allowed.