The High Court · 2025

Petition Under Articre 226 of the constitution of rndia praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit fired therewith, the High court may be pleased to issue a writ, order or Direction particurarry a writ of lrrandamus declaring the action of respondent No. 2 in issuing order dated 22r1ot2o2o in No.TS/MEC/52-34-000928-00'l-1004 confirming the payment demanded in c-19 dated 2710812020 and consequent affixture of o4l11t2o2o warrant of Attachment of lmmovable Property dated 04-1 1-2020 by the 3rd respondent in No. 5234000928981 1 004 on the door of petitioners premises as arbitrary, iilegar and without verifying the payments made by the petitioner towards Employers contribution as well and Employees contribution from October, 201 0 to November, 2011 and thus set the said orders aside and cr:nsequently direct the respondents verify the payments made by the petitioner with their l\/lumbai codes and drop further action basing on the above stated orders and warrant of attachments duly updating the payments made by the pr,:titioner towards their contribution in time. l.A.NO:'t OF 2020 Petition Under section 15i cpc praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to direct the respondents to verify the payments made by th,:: petitioner with their Mumbai Codes try considering the copies of pay_in_slitris submitted by the petitioner pending disposar of the writ petition by suspendinr; the order dated 22- 10-2020 in No rs/t\4Ectsz-34-ooo928-001-1004 issued by rd respondent confirming the pa'y'ment demanded in c-1g dated 27 -og-2r]20 arrd consequent affixture of Warrant of Attachment of Immovable property ,Jated 04-.1 1_2020 by the 3rd respondent in No 523400092g01 1004 on the do.rs of the petitioners premises and pass |.A.NO:1 OF 2021 Between: t M/s writer Safeouard pvr Ltd, .1-19-315,9pp oto Airport, prakashnagar, Bequmpet - 500 010, Hvdera-bacr Represented oy rts ArEl ["";'d;p' vfiiK;[til uusu"' AND .....PETITIONER 1 2 J Employees Srate I nsurance.C_orporation, Regional Office. Tela n gana, Represented bv its Reoionat oirbctor, s b_zal Hiii?oi'noii. AJrftr,nlg, Hyderabad -50b 063. ielangana Stat'e. 119 DeO_ulV Director. Employees State lnsurance Corporatron, Regional Office, (Ro-Tetanoana) i-slzs, Hiilrort n"io, AJriJnagi,rr, Hyderabad _500 063 TS The Recovery Officer. Emnloyees State lnsurance Corporation, Regional office, ( Ro r-etanoa na) s:s-ii,-Hitrort R;;;',1;;;irager r, Hyderabad _500 063. T S ....RESPONDENTS Petition Under section '151 cpc praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit fired in support of the petition, the High court may be pleased to vacate the interim order Dl. 111i112020 in w.p No. 20004 of 2020 and dismiss the writ petition with costs. Counsel for the Petitioner : Ms. T.P.ACHARYA Counsel for the Respondents : SRI pASHAM SRINIVASULU The Court made the following ORDER I THE HON'BLESRI JUSTICE NAGESH BHE EMAPAKA WRIT PETITION No.2OO 04 0F 2020, ORDER: M/s. \trrriter Safeguard pvt.Ltd., a companv withL its head Oflice in Mrrmbai, has a branch in Balanagr:Lr, H.rderabad, covered undr:r the ESI Act. Due to technica-l issr.res drrring ESI system computerization, the Hyderabad branch,. contributions were paid through the Mumbai Office under a difl,erent code but within the required time. Despite this, the ESI department issued a notice on 26.02.2020 demanding Rs. 1..\,gg,Lt29/_ for contributions lrom October, 20 10 to Novernber, 20 1 1 . This notice was foru-arded to the Mumbai Office, which was affected by the COVID-19 lockdou,n, and no immediate rt:p\y u.as sent. Later, the department demalded Rs.29,24,O9U _ with interest. Petitioner responded on 04.Og.2O2O, submitting proof of payments made. However, the department still issrued an order on 22.7O.2020 confirming the demand without veri.ying records. A follow-up letter dated Os.tl.2O2O was a_lso ignr:red, ;and the authorities thrr:atened to sea-l the Hyderabad Office . As er result, petitioner approached this court, stating that all ,.)ontributions were paid and the demand is arbitrary ald unlawful . \ \BK,] WP \o l()rl()l ot l0l0

2. Heard Ms. T.P. Acharya, learned counsel for petitioner, and Sri Pasham Srinivasulu, learned counsel for respondents. Perused the record 3, Learned counsel for respondents hled a counter affidavit stating that petitioner wrongly challenged the demald notice dated 22.1O.2O2O, which was legally issued under the ESI Act after the petitioner failed to pay contributions from October, 20 10 to November, 20 1 1 . Though contributions were declared online, they were not paid under the correct Hyderabad code. Petitioner submitted challans related to a different (Mumbai) code, which do not match the Hyderabad branch's dues. It is stated that petitioner received proper notices, failed to respond in time, and only reacted after recovery actioq began. [t is further stated that petitioner should have approached the ESI Court under Section 75, which was functioning post-COVID, instead of Iiling a writ petition before this Court. Therefore, the t- rvrit petition is not maintainable and is liable to be dismissed.

4. Considering the submissions made by both the learned counsel alrd perusing the records, it is clear that petitioner failed to pay ESI contributions under the correct code for its Hyderabad branch. Despite E, notices, no timely response was l\ NBK.J \tP.No l)001o1 l0l0 given, arrd petitioner only submitted documenr,s aJter recovery proceedings began. It may be noted that the ch:illans submitted relate to a different code ald do not establish payment for the Hyderabad unit. Further, petitioner also fail:d to avail the statutory rt:medy under Section 75 of the ESI Act, which was available post-COVID.

5. Accorrlinglv, the writ petition is disposed of, directing the petitioner to file an appropriate appeal before the appropriate forum within a period of six (06) weeks from thr: date of receipt of a copy of this order. Interim Order gralterl by this Court earlier shall continue tiil the filing of an appeal. However, liberty 1S granted to the respondents to proceed with. recovery proceedings in accordance lvith law, subject to the outcome of the said appeal. There shall be no order as to costs.' Miscellaneous petitions, if arry, pendinl,5 in this Writ Petition, shall stand closed. //TRUE COPY// SD,,.M. JAWA HAR REDDY REGISTRAR SStsrnur i SECTION OFFICER (:rrporation, Reg To Director, EmP ina, 5-9-23, Hi 1 . The Regional Office- Telang 2. The DeP uty Dire ctor. EmPloYeES State lnsurance Cor:oration, Regional Telang ana State Office, (R O-Tela ngana),5-9-2 3, Hil lfort Road, Adarshnagar, Hyderabad -500 yderabad -500 063, State lnsuran oad, Adarshnag rH lifort R loyees 063, T.S 3. The Reco verY Officer, EmPloY Office, (RO Telangana ), 5-e-23, ees State lnsurance CorPoration, gar, HY Hillfort Road, Adarsltna Regional derabad -500 4 5 6 CA Hli ti l: BH ll,fi"^msIft'0ittll: [T":""i" oPucr Two CD CoPies a,, HIGH COURT DATED:2610812025 ORDER WP.No.20004 of 2020 i() 16 sEP 20?J * D€5 /'^r I ctir-\]{- "J I DISPOSING OF THE W.P WITHOUT COSTS.