GAHC010072962018

undefined

THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT

(HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH)

Case No. : WP(C)/2295/2018

OIL INDIA LIMITED

A GOVT. OF COMPANY, HAVING ITS REGISTERED OFFICE AT DULIAJAN,

PO DULIAJAN, DIST. DIBRUGARH, PIN-786602, ASSAM, REP. BY ITS

RESIDENT CHIEF EXECUTIVE

VERSUS

EMPLOYEES STATE INSURANCE CORPORATION. N E REGIONAL OFFICE

AND 5 ORS. D

NORTH EAST REGIONAL OFFICE, BAMUNIMAIDAN, GUWAHATI, IN THE

DISTRICT KAMRUP, ASSAM

2:THE REGIONAL DIRECTOR

EMPLOYEES STATE INSURANCE COROPORATION

REGIONAL OFFICE

BAMUNIMAIDAN

GUWAHATI-21

IN THE DISTRICT OF KAMRUP (M)

ASSAM

3:THE ASSISTANT DIRECTOR

EMPLOYEES STATE INSURANCE CORPORATION

REGIONAL OFFICE

BAMUNIMAIDAN

GUWAHATI-21

IN THE DISTRICT OF KAMRUP (M)

ASSAM

4:THE RECOVERY OFFICER

EMPLOYEES STATE INSURANCE CORPORATION

REGIONAL OFFICE

BAMUNIMAIDAN

GUWAHATI-21 IN THE DIST. OF KAMRUP (M)

ASSAM

5:OIL INDIA TALIKA BHUKTA THIKA SHRAMIK SANGHA REP. BY ITS GENERAL SECRETARY DULIAJAN PO- DULIAJAN PIN-786602 DIST. DIBRUGARH ASSAM

6:THE PREDING OFFICER EMPLOYEES INSURANCE COURT DIBRUGARH DIST. DIBRUGARH PIN-78660 BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DEVASHIS BARUAH For the petitioner (s) : Mr. S. Chakraborty, Advocate For the respondent (s) : Mr. M. Smith, Advocate Date on which judgment is reserved : NA Date of pronouncement of judgment : 08.12.2025 Whether the pronouncement is of the Operative part of the judgment? : NA Whether the full judgment has been Pronounced? : Yes Heard Mr. S. Chakraborty, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner and Mr. M. Smith, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the ESI.

2. The petitioner herein has approached this Court challenging the order dated 04.04.2018 passed by the learned Presiding Officer, ESI Court, Dibrugarh whereby the learned ESI Court has directed the petitioner to deposit 25% of the amount of the total ESI contribution as a pre-deposit.

3. This Court duly takes note of Section 75 (2B) of the Employees’ State Insurance Act, 1948 (for short, ‘the Act of 1948’) and as the said provision has relevance, the same is reproduced herein under:-

“ 75(2B) No matter which is in dispute between a principal employer and the Corporation in respect of any contribution or any other dues shall be raised by the principal employer in the Employees' Insurance Court unless he has deposited with the Court fifty per cent of the amount due from him as claimed by the Corporation: PROVIDED that the Court may, for reasons to be recorded in writing, waive or reduce the amount to be deposited under this sub-

section.”

4. From a perusal of the above quoted Section, it transpires that whatever be the kind of dispute between the Principal Employer and the Corporation in respect to any contribution or other dues can only be raised by the Principal Employer in the Employees' Insurance Court when the Principal Employer had deposited with the Court 50% of the amount due from the Principal Employer as claimed by the Corporation. Further to that, the learned ESI Court has also been granted a discretion, for reasons to be recorded in writing, to waive or reduce the amount to be deposited under the said Sub-section (2B) of the Act of 1948.

5. In the backdrop of the above, it is seen that the petitioner herein had filed an application under Section 75 (2B) of the Act of 1948 seeking waiver of the deposit of the 50% of the alleged amount due from the petitioner. The ground on which the petitioner sought for the waiver is that the petitioner had already deposited an amount of Rs.76,41,563/- at the time of filing of the Appeal under Section 45-AA of the Act of 1948 and further, the petitioner had also deposited an amount of Rs.50,54,640/- as interest on the contribution demand. It is the case of the petitioner that no further amount ought to have been directed by the learned ESI Court, taking into account the materials on record.

6. The materials on record and more particularly the impugned order shows that the learned ESI Court had exercised its discretion to waive off 25% out o