2025:BHC-OS:15607 Sharayu Khot.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION (L) NO. 36012 OF 2024 Foundever CRM India Pvt. Ltd. & Anr. …Petitioners Versus Employee State Insurance Corporation & Ors. …Respondents ----------

Mr. Ashish Kamat, Senior Counsel a/w Mr. Rashmin Khandekar, Ms. Shalaka Patil, Ms. Paulomi Mehta, Ms. Shilpa Sengar and Mr. Harsh Khanchandani i/b. Trilegal for the Petitioners.

Mr. Shailesh Pathak with Mr. T.R. Yadav for Respondent ESIC.

----------

CORAM : R.I. CHAGLA J.

Reserved on : 8 May 2025 Pronounced on : 19 September 2025 JUDGMENT :

1. By this Writ Petition, the Petitioners have sought quashing and setting aside of the Demand Notices, Recovery Notices, Prohibitory Orders, Bank Show Cause Notice, Inspection Report and SHARAYU PANDURANG KHOT the Further Demand Notices issued by the Respondents (“the Dsiiggniteadl byy SHARAYU PANDURANG KHOT D20a2te5:.09.19 17:40:55 +0530 impugned orders”).

2. The 1st Petitioner is a private limited company engaged in the business of providing business process outsourcing services across different industry sectors. The 1st Petitioner has approximately 2000 employees and the Employees State Insurance Act, 1948 (“ESI Act”) is applicable to it. The 1st Petitioner claims to be compliant of its statutory obligations under the ESI Act and is also responsive to queries and questions from statutory authorities such as the Respondents, which includes the ESI Corporation and its officers.

3. The 1st Petitioner states that towards compliance of its obligations under the ESI Act, for the period from April 2019 to March 2024, the 1st Petitioner had made payment of INR 13,35,45,916 towards dues of contribution under the ESI Act. The Petitioner states that the Respondents’ over-broad and unlawful actions arose after the payment of the aforementioned amount when the Respondents initiated visits to the 1st Petitioner’s offices from May 3, 2024 to July 1, 2024 for inspection of records and documents maintained by the 1st Petitioner under the ESI Act. During each of these inspection visits, the Petitioners claimed to have been extremely co-operative and provided all the documents which were requested by the ESIC department and available with the 1st Petitioner Company. On May 13, 2024, even the Petitioner visited the Respondent’s office to provide the authorities with any documents /

information sought.

4. The Respondent No. 4 - the Social Security Officer had arrived at the findings which were shared with the Petitioners on 15th July 2024 by way of the Inspection Report, which had not offered the Petitioners an opportunity to justify or provide the rationale as to why the said payments could not be considered for the purpose of remitting contributions under the ESI Act nor was any notice or hearing granted. The 1st Petitioner states that during this time when its personnel were in discussions with the Respondents, the Respondents had assured the 1st Petitioner that the details and documents in respect of the Inspection Report workings would be provided and that no coercive steps would be taken.

5. The 1st Petitioner states that without any notice, without granting any hearing opportunity or passing any order whatsoever, to their complete surprise and shock, the Respondents issued demand notices in October 2024 for a cumulative amount of INR 5,20,43,692.

6. The 1st Petitioner states that upon receiving the demand notices, on October 29, 2024, the Petitioner once again visited the Respondents and sought an opportunity for a hearing and a reply submission and were assured by the Respondents and in particular the 4th Respondent that a hearing would be given. During the Petitioners’ visit on November 18, 2024 at the offices of the Respondents, the Petitioners sought time for a written reply. Time was given by the Respondents until in or around November 25, 2024 for a reply and then a hearing was also promised.

7. The Petitioners state that they submitted a