WP(C)/16268/2026 of M/S DASHARATH SAHOO, JAGATSINGHPUR Vs EMPLOYEES STATE INSURANCE CORPORATION (E.S.I.C) BHUBANESWAR on 22 May 2026

J U D G M E N T

------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Date of Hearing and Judgment: 22nd May, 2026 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ MRUGANKA SEKHAR SAHOO, J.

1. The petitioner a proprietorship firm engaged in business at Paradeep in the district of Jagatsinghpur, is before this Court seeking intervention by exercising of extraordinary writ jurisdiction under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, challenging the Garnishee Order dated 22.07.2025 (Annexure-1 of the writ application) issued under section 45G of the Employees’ State Insurance (ESI) Act, 1948 passed by the Recovery Officer. Also under challenge is the order dated 01.12.2017 (Annexure-3) issued by the Deputy Director -cum- Authorized Officer, ESI Corporation whereby the petitioner establishment has been directed to be covered from October, 2011 under the provisions of the Act.

2. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner is not aware of the proceeding U/S.45A of the ESI Act, that was initiated by the authority and it is contended that the petitioner was not ever served with any notice.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner was asked to serve copy of the writ application on the learned Standing Counsel appearing for the opposite party nos.1 and 2-ESI Corporation, accordingly, copy of the writ petition is served on the learned Standing counsel for the opposite party nos.1 and 2.

4. Though the matter is listed for fresh admission, in the interest of justice it is finally heard & disposed of on consent of the learned counsel for the parties.

From the discussions that follows and the purport of order that would be passed it would be apparent that no purpose would be served in keeping the matter pending before this Court and the issues raised should be answered by the appropriate Court by going deep into the facts as well as in detail.

5. Learned Standing Counsel referring to section 75 (1)(g) of the Employees’ State Insurance Act, 1948 submits that the petitioner is supposed to approach the Employees’ Insurance Court for challenging the orders which is sought to be challenged in the present application.

For convenience of reference, the section 75(1)(g) is reproduced herein: “(1) If any question or dispute arises as to- …

…

…

(g) any other matter which is in dispute between the principal employer and the Corporation, or between a principal employer and an immediate employer, or between a person and the Corporation or between an employee and a principal or immediate employer, in respect of any contribution or benefit or other dues payable or recoverable under this Act, 46[or, any other matter required to be or which may be decided by the Employees’ Insurance Court under this Act], such question or dispute 61[subject to the provisions of sub-section (2-A)] shall be decided by the Employees’ Insurance Court in accordance with the provisions of this Act.”

6. Learned Standing Counsel further refers to sections 77(1) and 77(1-A) and submits that the application has to be made before the Employees’ Insurance Court within a period of three years from the date on which the cause of action arose. It is submitted, in the present case the cause of action has to be treated to be arising on a date in March, 2013.

Sections 77(1) and 77(1-A) of the ESI Act, 1948 are reproduced herein: “(1) The Proceedings before an Employees’ Insurance Court shall be commended by application. 67[(1-A) Every such application shall be made within a period of three years from the date on which the cause of action arose.”

Learned Standing Counsel opposes the prayer made in the writ petition.

7. Now, looking at the averments made in the writ application as well as the annexures, it can be seen that the order passed by the authority under section 45A of the ESI Act has not been annexed as it is stated and contended that the said order was never served on the petitioner.

8. The order under challenge dated 01.12.2017 states “The factory/establishment has been provisionally covered with effect from 01/01/0001 (sic)” at paragraph 6 and it also indicates the “period starting with October, 2011” at paragraph 3; but the order by the Authorized Officer does not refer to any earlier order or any other document that is contemporaneous to ‘October, 2011’, so as to indicate that the petitioner is liable from October, 2011.

The Garnishee order (Annexure-1) dated 22.07.2025 passed under section 45G also does not refer to any earlier order nor to the order passed under section 45A that could be on a date contemporaneous to ‘October, 2011’.

9. In the above scenario, from which date ‘three years’ can be calculated as prescribed in section 77 becomes a nebulous issue as there cannot be any presumption to the effect that the petitioner is covered from October, 2011 in absence of the foundational facts/documents/orders of the appropriate authority.

10. In the interest of justice and fair play and by exercising the jurisdiction conferred under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, this Court observes that since the date of cause of action as prescribed in section 77 is not evident, rather is obscure, the petitioner shall approach the Employees’ Insurance Court having jurisdiction by filing application under section 75)1)(g) within a period of eight weeks.

11. It is further directed that upon application being made before the learned District Judge–cum-Employees’ Insurance Court (E.I. Court) having jurisdiction, the Court shall consider the application under section 75(1)(g) on merits without detaining itself for considering the issuance of condonation of delay in filing the application.

12. The petitioner shall make application seeking copy of all relevant documents before the authority within a period of fifteen working days from the date of issuance of certified copy of this judgment.

The authority shall provide authenticated/certified copies of relevant documents sought for within a period of ten working days thereafter.

13. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner and stated in the writ application that towards the amount of Rs.10, 97, 161/-(rupees ten lakh ninety seven thousand one hundred sixty one only) determined by the authority to be payable by the petitioner, the bank account has been frozen.

14. This Court further takes note of the proviso to section 75(2-B) which gives power to the E.I. Court to waive or reduce the amount to be deposited. The petitioner shall deposit/keep an amount of Rs.3,00,000/- (rupees three lakh only) in the bank account to be kept on a high interest being fixed deposit to the credit of the proceeding before the learned E.I. court. The deposit shall be subject to the proceeding before the learned E.I. Court and shall abide by the orders to be passed by the said Court.

15. It is further directed section 75(2-B) which prescribes for deposit of 50% of the amount demanded shall not be a bar in any manner for entertaining application under 75(1)(g) after the petitioner deposits the amount of Rs.3,00,000/- as fixed deposit and the certificate of deposit shall be produced before the learned E.I. court. The fixed deposit made by the petitioner shall abide by the orders that would be passed by the learned E.I. court as directed above.

16. The petitioner as well the opposite parties shall have liberty to raise all contentions before the Employees’ Insurance Court for consideration by the said Court

17. It is further clarified that no part of this order shall be treated as expression of opinion of this Court regarding merits of the case of the petitioner or opinion regarding the contentions of the parties to the writ petition in any manner whatsoever.

18. The Writ Application is disposed of with the above observations.

(Mruganka Sekhar Sahoo) Judge

Orissa High Court, Cuttack The 22nd May, 2026/jyostna

Digitally Signed Signed by: JYOSTNARANI MAJHEE Reason: Authentication Location: OHC Date: 30-May-2026 12:54:45 Signature Not Verified