IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD R/FIRST APPEAL NO. 4701 of 2023 With R/FIRST APPEAL NO. 4702 of 2023 With R/FIRST APPEAL NO. 4703 of 2023 With R/FIRST APPEAL NO. 4704 of 2023 FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE:

HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE M. K. THAKKER ==========================================================

Approved for Reporting Yes No YES ==========================================================

EMPLOYEES STATE INSURANCE CORPORATION Versus AIA ENGINEERING LIMITED ==========================================================

Appearance:

MR SACHIN D VASAVADA(3342) for the Appellant(s) No. 1 LD SR ADV. MR DEVANG NANAVATI ASSISTED BY MR VANDAN BAXI FOR NANAVATI & NANAVATI(1933) for the Defendant(s) No. 1 ==========================================================

CORAM:HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE M. K. THAKKER Date : 12/02/2026 COMMON ORAL JUDGMENT

1 Admit. Learned senior advocate Mr. Nanavati waives service of notice of admission on behalf of the defendant.

2 With the consent of the parties the matter is heard finally.

3 Since the issue raised in the these appeals are similar, they are being decided by a common judgment. The facts of First Appeal No.4703 of 2023 are taken for the purpose of adjudication.

4 The present appeal is filed under Section 82 of the Employees’ State Insurance Act, 1948 (hereinafter referred to as “the Act”), challenging the judgment and order passed by the learned ESI Court, Ahmedabad, in ESI Application No. 111 of 2007, whereby the learned Court allowed the application and set aside the notice issued under Form C-18 dated 21.09.2006, as well as the order passed under Section 45A of the Act dated 10.10.2007.

Factual Matrix:

5 The appellant is the Employees’ State Insurance Corporation, and the opponent is AIA Engineering Company, incorporated under the provisions of the Companies Act. It is the case of the appellant that the opponent engaged contractual workers but failed to submit ESI contributions and also failed to maintain separate records. As per the ESI Revenue Manual, the contributions were required to be paid. Therefore, prior to passing the order under Section 45A of the Act, the ESIC supplied a copy of the Revenue Manual to the employer and afforded an opportunity of hearing. Thereafter, an order was passed directing the employer to pay a contribution of Rs.11,94,402/- for the period from April 2004 to March 2005. Since the employer had already paid an amount of Rs.9,05,371/-, the remaining amount of Rs.2,89,027/- was directed to be paid within a period of four to five days. Being aggrieved by the said order, the employer preferred an application before the ESI Court being ESI Application No. 111 of 2007, contending that the Insurance Inspector had visited the respondent establishment on 07.09.2006, 08.09.2006, and 12.09.2006, verified all the records of the establishment for the period from April 2001 to March 2005, and issued the Inspector’s Observation Slip on 12.09.2006. In that background, it was submitted that the provisions of Section 45A of the Act were not applicable and, therefore, the order passed thereunder was not sustainable in the eyes of law. At the end, after considering the evidence placed on record, the learned Court has allowed the application, which is the subject matter of challenge before this Court.

6 The learned EI Court has framed following issues for adjudicating the issues and answer accordingly.

(1) Whether the application of the applicant is barred by limitation?

Answer is in negative.

(2)Whether the applicant proves that the applicant is not liable to pay the amount of contribution under the provisions of the Employees’ State Insurance Act, 1948, for the period from April, 2004 to March, 2005, on the difference between the wages paid by the applicant to the contractor and the wages paid by the contractor to his employees?

Answer is in affirmative.

(3) Whether the applicant proves that the order passed by the opponent under Section 45-A is illegal and unjust?

Answer is in affirmative.

(4