WP(C)/2433/2026 of PARTHA PRATIM TIWARI Vs THE EMPLOYEE STATE INSURANCE CORPORATION on 10 May 2026

ORDER

11.05.2026 Heard Mr. K. Singha, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner and Mr. M. Smith, learned Standing Counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent Nos. 1, 2, 3 & 4.

2. Taking into account the order which this Court proposes to pass, this Court dispenses with the service upon the respondent Nos. 5 & 6.

3. The petitioner herein has assailed the order dated 10.03.2026, by which, the Regional Director, i.e., the respondent No. 2 herein; has passed an order in exercise of power under Section 85-B of the Employees’ State Insurance Act, 1948; thereby, imposing an amount of Rs. 5,79,264/- as damages for the wage period from 01.03.2016 to 31.12.2019.

4. It is the case of the petitioner that for the period from March 2016 to December 2019, a total amount of Rs. 9,61,491/- was payable. In pursuance to the directions issued, the petitioner duly paid the said amount and from the perusal of the order, dated 03.07.2025 issued by the respondent No. 4, it would be apparent that there was no outstanding dues payable by the petitioner.

5. The learned counsel further submitted that for the period from June 2020 to March 2025, an amount of Rs. 83,60,352/- was held to be payable by the petitioner. However, the petitioner, upon explaining to the authorities concerned, the respondent No. 3 had categorically held that for the period from June 2020 to March 2025, there was no amount payable by the petitioner.

6. However, to the shock of the petitioner, a Notice, dated 18.02.2026 was received from the respondent No. 2 to appear before him and explain as to why damages to the extent of Rs. 5,79,264/- would not be payable by the petitioner.

7. Pursuant thereto, an order was passed on 10.03.2026, which was digitally signed on 13.03.2026; thereby, imposing damages to the tune of Rs. 5,79,264/- for the period from 01.03.2016 to 31.12.2019.

8. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner submitted that there is no amount which the petitioner is liable to pay and infact, the petitioner had paid more than what is required, as per the ESI Act, 1948.

9. Mr. M. Smith, learned Standing Counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent Nos. 1, 2, 3 & 4 submitted that the question, as to whether the petitioner is liable to pay more or the fact that the petitioner had paid more amount than what is required; are questions of facts and in that regard, as the petitioner has an alternative and efficacious remedy before the Employees’ Insurance Court, in terms of Section 75(g) of the ESI Act, 1948; this Court may not like to entertain the instant writ petition.

10. This Court has given anxious consideration to the respective submissions and taking into account the issue involved, as to whether the petitioner is not liable to make any payment or the fact that the petitioner had already paid more than what is required for the period from 01.03.2016 to 31.12.2019; are questions of facts, which can best be redressed before the Employees’ Insurance Court, wherein, these facts can be adequately dealt with.

11. Accordingly, this Court, therefore, is not inclined to entertain the instant writ petition, for which, the same stands dismissed.

12. Before parting with the records, this Court, however, observes that the dismissal of the instant writ petition shall not prejudice or preclude the petitioner to approach the Employees’ Insurance Court, in terms of Section 75(g) of the ESI Act, 1948, if so advised.

JUDGE Comparing Assistant