The High Court · 2025

Petition under Article 226 of lhe Constitution of lndia praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may be pleased to issue a Writ, order or direction more one in the nature of WRIT OF MANDAIUUS declaring the prohibitory order vide No. 52Q/49453-1019 dt. 11-2- 2025 and consequent to freezer of the account Nos. (1) 142305000587 (2) 142301513879 and (3) 142305000096 of the 5th respondent bank and also recovery of an amount of Rs. 10,29,460/- from the petitioner though the 4th respondent receiving the amount from the Sub-Code No. 715204945001 1019 is llegal, arbitrary, contrary to law and violation of reported Judg nent of the Hon'ble Apex Court reported in 2016(6) SCC, Page 635 and cons( quently restore the above accounts in operation day to day accounts in the interes ofjustice lA NO: 1 OF 2025 Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the cirr; rmstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court mav re pleased to direct the respondents 4 and 5 to restore the freezed accounts No; (1) 142305000987 (2) 142301513879 and (3) 142305000096 of the petitioner irr the 5th respondent bank pending disposal of the main Writ Petition. IA NO: 2 OF 2025 Petitlon under Section 151 CPC praying that in the cirt; mstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to Stay the operation of recovery if any from the petitioner r ccounts Nos. ( 1 ) 142305000987 (2) 142301513879 and (3) 142305000096 b1, lhe 4th respondent pending disposal of the main Writ Petition. Counsel for the Petitioner: SRI MOHD GULAM RASOOL Counsel for the Respondent No.1: SRI A. KRANTT KUMAR Fl :DDY, SC FOR CENTRAL GOVE:I I.NMENT Counsel for the Respondent No.2: GP FOR LABOUR Counsel forthe Respondent Nos.3 and 4: SRI G. VENKATES {VARLU, SC FOR ESIC Counsel for the Respondent No.S:-- The Court made the following: ORDER THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE NAGESH BHEEMAPAKA /. WRIT PETITION No. 23310 of 2025 ORDER: This Writ Petition is filed, aggrieved by the prohibitory orcier dated 11.O2.2025 issued by the 4rh respondent, directing the Sth rcspondent bank to recover and transfer a sum of Rs. 10,29,460/, including interest, from the petitioner,s bank accounts fowards alleged arrears under the ESI Act, 1948, read rvith Rule 5 of the Second Schedule of the Income Tax Act, 196 1.

2. Heard Sri Mohd Ghulam Rasool, learned counsel for petiLioner, and Sri A_ I(rarthi Kumar Reddy, learned Standing Counsel for the Central GovernmenL for respondent No.1. perused the record. 3 . Le arned counsel for petitioner submits that the ESI cr.,ntriburions are being regularly arr d duly paid under Sub Code No.7 1520494530011019, while the Main Code No.5200049453000 1O19 has remained inactive since 2019 due to closure of operations. As a result of the impugned order datecl 11.O2.2025, the petitioner's three bank accounts have been frozert, causing serious financial hardship and obstmcting receipt of Rs. 1,97,96,995/ payable to petitioner by trlectro Steel Casting / / l J 2 Ltd. It is further stated that petitioner har; already paid Rs.5,a3,9f 1/- t-hrough auto-debit, deniald draft, lrrd post.dated cheques; thereforc, the attempt to recover the fu t amount again constitutes double recoverv, which is rvholl . iliegai and unjustified. The freezing of accounts has not o: [v affected the petitioner's business operations but also violates 1l e fundamental right to propertv under Article 300A of the Constitu ion. There lorc. it is praved to set aside the sard order and restore r he operation of the bank accounts

4. Learned Standing Counsel for trSI Corporati: I submits that the issue raised in this Writ Petition is sqtrarel.y :overed by the Judgment of the Division Bench of this Court in I shok Legland Litnited, Ductron, Castings Lirnited, Vs,Deptt tg Tahsild.ar,/ Special Reuenue Inspector (ESI) Recouery Cei,.., , Collectorate and anotherr in W.P.No.2120 of 199 1 & Batch, rr rd the relevant portion of the sard order in paragraph Nos.4 zL: rd 6 reads as follows: " 4. Thal evcn the Courts and Tribunals, constitutcd undcl 1e ESI Act, have inherent po$,er to issue appropriate relief by way of injunctio I .o thc party before it and it can cnforce thc orders.

6. The petiLioncrs may appr.oach the DSI Court, coirstrt rtcd under Section 74 of thc ESI Act, by flling appropriate appucations, an.L r the event such applicahons are filed by the pclilLoncr-s, Lhe same shall be (i posed of in accordance with law." , 2001 (4) ALD 96 (DB) I \ 3 Wherein it was held that with regard to the grievances against ESi Contributions/matters, the ESI Court is the appropriate forum to adjudicate the matter ald therefore, the pclitroncr ma_r' be directed to approach the ESI Court in appropriate proceeciings

5. Lcarned Standing counsel for trSI Corporation further refers to Sections 74 and 75 of the trSI Act, which reads as follows: Section 74 of the ESI Act reads: Conslitution oI Umployees Insurance courL: (l) Th. SLate Covernincnt shall, bl. notill.ation in the Official Gazcttc, constrture dn llmployees' Insurz\nce CourL for such local area as may be specified in the noLilication (2) The Court shall consisl o[ such numbcr of Judges as the Statc Government may Lh ink fil. (3) An_v persorl r,ho is or has been a judicial ofhcer or is a legal practitioner of fir.L: _rca; s standire shall be quaLified to be a .Judge of the Employees lnsurance Courl. (4) Tlle State Covcrnment may.rppoinr Lhe same Court for Lwo or more local areas or Lwo or more Courts for the same local area. (5) Whcre more than one Court has been appointed for the samc [oca1 area, the Stdre Ciovemment may l)-t,general or special order refJulate the distribution ol l>usLress beL\itcn them. ) ) Scction 75 of the ESI Act teads: (g) an,y other rnarter which is in dispute between a principal employer and the Corporation, or betrveen a principal employer and an immediate cmploycr or betu,een:r person and the Corporation or between an employee and a principal or immedrate employer, in respcct of any contribution or benelit or other dues payable or rccoverable under this Act, 11lor any other matter required to be or which may be decided by the Employees lnsurance Court under this Act,l such qucstion or dispurc i 1[sub.1ect to the provision o[ sub-section (2A)] shall be decidcd by the Employeesl Insurance Court in accoldance with the provisions of this Acr.

6. Having considered the respective submissions and perused thc rccord, the allegations with regard to payments already made. and double charging despite closure of Main Code No. 52000494530001019, are questions of fact that this Court is not ( I t I 4 inclined to go into in a *,rit petition. In view of Scc Lions 74 and zS of the ESI Act, and also in the light of the juclr ment in Ashok Legland (supra), this Court is of the considereri ,pinion that the remedy before the tr,SI Court is appropriate to adj urdicate the question of fact rvith regard to alleged contributro rs/pavmcnts in this matter.

7. Accordingly, the u,rit petition is disposcd < I *.irh liberLr. 1o the petitioner to approach the trSI Court ,,i,itJr regard to his grievance. There shall be no order as to costs Pending miscellaneous appiications, if an.. sherli stand c1o sed. SD . P.C. SULEKHA DEVI' 3 STANT REGISTRAR AF 7 //TRUE COPY// \' SECTION OFFICER To,

1. The Under Secretary, The Union of lndia, Department c f Ministry of Labour and Employment Central Secretariat, New Delhi. I

2. The Principal Secretary, The State of Telangana, Labor r and Employment TS Secretariat, Hyderabad.

3. The AssistanVDeputy Director, Employees State lnsunrr ce Corporation Regional office,5-9-023, Hill fort Road, Adarshnagar' l-l derabad, Telangana State

4. The Recovery officer, Regional office, ESI Corporation I Hyderabad, Telangana State

5. The Branch Manager, lClCl Bank Kharatabad Branch, ( Mansions Opp. lnstitute of Engineers Khairatabad, Hyclr 6. One CC to Sri firlohd Gulam Rasool, Advocate [OPUC ] 7. One CC to Sri A. Kranti Kumar Reddy, Advocate [OPll B. One CC to Sri G. Venkateshvarlu, SC for ESIC[OPUC] 9. Two CC to The GP for Labour, High Court for the Stak: HyderabadlOUTl ,darshnagar, -2-1012TGV I rf Telangana, at HIGH COURT DATED:0811012025 ORDER WP.No.23310 of 2025 ' -rrtr (= 1.: . 1rl'* \)'rt;1_ \). 3 o ttg 2026 f. i.r DISPOSING OF THE WRIT PETITION WITHOUT COSTS ALT\r \tub