High Court · 2025

Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of lndia praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may be pleased to issue a Writ of lVlandamus or any other appropriate writ declaring that the order in EIC No.35 of 2021, dated 2210112025 passed by Employees lnsurance Court - cum - Chairman, lndustrial Tribunal at Hyderabad by which the lndustrial Tribunal directing the petitioner to pay the damages amount to the corporation within 60 days from the date of the order and in case failure to pay the damages within the stipulated time the respondent corporation is at liberty to take necessary action as per law, is illegal and arbitrary and contrary to the provisions of Section 45A of the ESI Act and set aside the same and direct the respondent corporation not to take any coercive steps against the petitioner for imposing damages of ESI contribution amount. lA NO: 1 OF 2025 Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to suspend the operation and effect of the order passed in EIC No.35 of 2021 , dated 22101 12025 c n the file of the Employees lnsurance Court - cum - Chairman, lndustrial Tribunal at Hyderabad, pending disposal of the writ petition. Counsel for the Petitioner: SRI J. PRABHAKAR, REPRESENTING SRI A. SRINIVAS Counsel for the Respondent: SRI G. VENKATESHWARLU, SC WRIT PETITION NO: 8863 OF 2025 Between: lM/s. St. Johns Primary School, (Presently merged with St. Johns Church High School and known as St. John's Church High School), rep. by ils Principal, K. Rosemary, Wio. Sri Vinod Kumar, aged about 57 years, Occupation. Principal, St. Johns Primary School, D.No.24lD, St Johns Road, East I\ularredpally, Sercunderabad. AND Employees State lnsurance Corporation, rep. by its Additional Commissioner and Regional Director, Office at 5-9-23, Adarsh Nagar, Hyderab;ad - 500 063. ...PETITIONER ...RESPONDENTS Petition under Article 226 oI the Constitution of lndia praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therbwith, the High Court may be pleased to issue a Writ of lt4andamus or any other appropriate writ declaring that the order in EIC No.36 of 2021 , daled 22.01.2025 passed by Employees lnsurance Court - cum - Chairman, lndustrial Tribunal at Hyderabad by which the lndustrial Tribunal directing the petitioner to pay the damages amount to the corporation within 60 days from the date of the order and in case failure to pay the damages within the stipulated time the respondent corporation is at liberty to take necessary action as per law, is illegal and arbitrary and contrary to the provisions of Section 45A of the ESI Act and set aside the same and direct the respondent corporation not to take any coercive steps against the petitioner for imposing damages of ESI contribution amount. i lA NO: 1 OF 2025 Petition undersection 151 cpc praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit fired in support of the petition, the High court may be preased to suspend the operation and effect of the order passed in Erc No.36 of 2021, dated 22'01 '2025 on the fire of the Emproyees rnsurance court - cum -chairman, lndustiial Tribunal at Hyderabad, pending disposal of the writ petition. Counsel for the Petitioner: SRt J. PRABHAKAR, REpRESENTTNG SRI A. SRINIVAS Counsel for the Respondent: SRI G. VENKATESHWARLU, SC WRIT PETITION NO: 8865 0F 2025 Between: M/s. St. Johns primary School, (presenUy merged with St. John,s Church High School and known as St. 'Jonnb 6hurch High School), rep. bv its Principat, K. Rosemary, Wo. Sri Vinoo Kumar, "rg"d"'ul;iit';7 ;dur., occupation. princioar, si..John's primary schooi, o.r.rr1+io, SiJtni,'. h"oro, East Marredpally, Secunderabad. AND Employees state rnsuran_ce corporation, rep. by its Additionar commissioner and Regionar Director, office at 5-9-23, Addrsh'Nagar, Hvoerioio -'soo'iioe. ...PETITIONER ...RESPONDENTS Petition under Articre 226 of rhe constitution of rndia praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit fired therewith, the High court may be pleased to issue a writ of Mandamus or any other appropriate writ declaring that the order in Elc No.37 of 2021 , dated 22.01 .2025 passed by Emproyees rnsurance court - cum - chairman, rndustrial rribunar at Hyderabad by which the rndustrial Tribunal directing the petitioner to pay the damages amount to the corporation within 60 days from the date of the order and in case fairure to pay the damages within the stipulated time the respondent corporation is at liberty to take necessary action as per law, is illegal and arbitrary and contrary to the provisions of Section 45A of the ESI Act and set aside the same and direct the respondent corporation not to take any coercive steps against the petitioner for imposing damages of ESI contribution amount. IA NO: 1 OF 2025 Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to suspend the operation and effect of the order passed in EIC No.37 of 2021 , dated 22.01 .2025 on the frle of the Employees lnsurance Court - cum - Chairman, lndustrial Tribunal at llyderabad, pending disposal of the writ petition. Counsel for the Petitioner: SRI J. PRABHAKAR, REPRESENTING SRI A. SRINIVAS Counsel for the Respondent: SRI G. VENKATESHWARLU, SC WRIT PETITION NO: 8883 OF 2025 Between: !/s S! Johns Primary School, (Presently merged with St. Johns Church High School and known as St. Johns Church High School), rep. by its Principal, k. Rosemary, W/o. Sri Vinod Kumar, aged about 57 years, Occupation. Principal, St. .lohns Primary School, D.No.24lD, St. John's Road, East Marredpally, Secunderabad AND Employees State lnsurance Corporation,, rep. by its Additional Commissioner and Regional Director, Office at 5-9-23, Adarsh Nagar, Hyderabad S00 063. ..,PETITIONER ...RESPONDENTS Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of lndia praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may be pleased to issue a Writ of lVlandamus or any other appropriate writ declaring that the order in EIC No.4 of 2021 , dated 22.01 .2025 passed by Employees lnsurance court cum chairman, lndustrial rribunal at Hyderabad by which the lndustrial Tribunal directing the petitioner to pay the damages amount to the corporation within 60 days from the date of the order and in case failure to pay the damages within the stipulated tirne the respondent corporation is at liberty to take necessary action as per law, is illegal and arbitrary and contrary to the provisions of Section 45A of the ESI Act and set aside the same and direct the respondent corporation not to take any coercive steps against the petitioner for imposing damages of ESI contribution amount. lA NO: 1 OF 2025 'Petition under Section '151 cPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High court may be pleased to suspend the operation and effect of the order passed in Elc No.4 of 2o2i, dated 22.01 .2025 on the file of the Employees Insurance court cum chairman, lndustrial Tribunal at Hyderabad, pending disposal of the writ petition. Counsel for the Petitioner: SRt J. PRABHAKAR, REpRESENTING SRIA. SRINIVAS Counsel for the Respondent: SRI G. VENKATESHWARLU, SC The Court made the following: COMMON ORDER THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE N.V. SHRAVAN KUMAR UrBII iEIITIolt Nos.8859. 8E63, EE65 ead€L8t qf 2025 COMMON ORDER: These wrrt petitions are liled questioning the orders in EIC Nos.35, 36, 37 and 04 of 2O2l respectively, all dated 22.01.2025 passed by Employees Insurance Court and Chairmar, Industrial Tribunal-I at Hyderabad (for short, 'the Tnbunal'), wherein the Industria-l Tribunal directed the petitioner herein to pay the damages amount to the corporation within 60 days from the date of the aforesaid orders and in case of failure to pay the darnages within the stipulated time the respondent corporation is at libert5r to take necessary action, as per law

2. Heard Sri J. Prabhakar, learned senior cc,unsel representing Sri A. Srinivas, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Sri G. Venkateshwarlu, learned Standing Counsel appearing for respondent. perused the record NVSK,J W.P.Nos.8859, 6863, E865 and 8883 of 2025 2 3 Learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit. that the respondent herein has not determined tJle actua_l quantum of specihc damages to be charged from the petitioner and that the orders passed by the learned Tribunal are illegal and without any authority. Therefore, the present writ petitions. +. Per contra, learned Standing Counsel appearing for the respondent submits that there is an appeal provision under Section 82 of the Employees State Insurance Act, 1948, wherein the appeal lies from the order of an Employees' Insurance Court. The same is extracted as "Section 82 in The Emlrlogees' State Insurance Act, 7948 82. AppeaL- (l)Saue as expresslg prouided in this section, no appeal shall lie from an order of an Emplogees' Insurance Court. (2)An appeal sha.ll lie to the High Court from an order of an Emplogees' Insurance Court if it inuolues a substantial question of law. (3)The period of limitation for an appeal under this section shall be sixty days. NVSK,J W. P.Nos.8859, 8863, a865 and 8883 of 2025 J ft)The pr()uisiorls of sections 5 and 12 of the Limitation Act, 1963 (36 of 1963) shall applg to appeals under this section."

5. Learned Standing Counsel further submitted that though there is appeal provision instead of filing appeals petitioner herein filed present Writ Petitions, therefore, these Writ Petitions are not maintainable.

6. In support of his case learned Standing Counsel relied on the order passed by the High Court of Bornbay in case of Rainbow Industries and Regional Director, -E.S.L Corporationr and also order passed by the High Court of Gujarat at Ahmedabad in case of Nitro Arornatics a. Regional Director and othersz, decided onOS-O2-2O0 1 elnd 14.12.2O1O respectively, wherein both the High Courts dismissed the respective cases stating that when the petitioner had to convince Appellate Court with regard to substantial questions of law and when alternative remedy was available to the petitioner, Court | 2007-I-LLJ , MANU/GJ/ 121Ol 20 I O t t I I 4 was slow in exercising its Writ jurisdiction. Thus, Court did not entertain petition only on the ground that alternative remedy is available to the petitioner by way of appeal.

7. After arguing at length, learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that petitioner would seek appropriate remedy by Iiling appeals under Section 82 of the Employees State Insurance Act, 1948.

8. Recording the said submission of learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, these Writ Petitions are disposed of granting liberty to the petitioner to file appeals before the Appellate Court under Section 82 of the Employees State Insurance Act, 1948. There shall be no order as to costs. Miscellaneous applications, if any pending, shall stand closed. //TRUE COPY// SD/. T. TIRUMALA DEVI T REGISTRAR ASSIS ECTION OFFICER

1. The Additional Commissioner and Regional Director, Employees Stalg - ^ ^^ ' tH;;t;p;;;iil;oifice iis-s-23, Adarsh Nagar, Hvderabad - 500 063 2. One CC to Sri A. Srinivas, Advocate [OPUC] 3. One CC to Sri G. Venkateshwarlu, SC[OPUC] 4. Two CD CoPies To, TJ GJP I HIGH COURT DATED:2 410312025 5t ,\T E OF : tt \,$-s $6 o i' +{ .,._l f, '- / < r;;.?i\' --j2 '-ir-.--: COMMON ORDER WP.Nos.8859, 8863, 8865 and 8883 of 2025 DISPOSING OF THE WRIT PETITIONS WITHOUT COSTS l"