The petitioner must seek resolution through the Employees' Insurance Court for disputes regarding contributions under the ESI Act.

JUDGMENT

Dated this the 18^th day of February, 2026 The issue involved in the present writ petition is that the petitioner stated that a certain amount was paid towards contribution to the Employees’ State Insurance under the provisions of the Employees’ State Insurance Act (in short ‘ESI Act’). It is further stated that the petitioner’s Institution does not fall within the ambit of the ESI Act. Hence, seeking for a refund of the entire amount collected from the petitioner i.e., Rs.2,17,686/- deducting the amount of Rs.33,511/- already paid, with interest forthwith.

2. The petitioner further contends that, pursuant to Regulation 40(1) of the Employees’ State Insurance (General) Regulations, 1950, “any contribution paid by a person under the erroneous belief that such contributions were payable by that person under that Act may be refunded without interest by the Corporation to that person, if application to that effect is made in writing before the commencement of the benefit period corresponding to the contribution period in which such contribution was paid.”

3. The petitioner has filed various applications in this regard. However, the petitioner originally paid the initial amount under protest. It is contended that, from the outset, the petitioner has taken the stand that the payment made would not fall within the purview of the ESI Regulations. Thereafter, Ext.P3 notice dated 19.05.2013 was issued to the petitioner stating that failure to comply with any of the provisions mentioned in the said notice constitutes a criminal offence punishable under Section 85 of the ESI Act, and that appropriate proceedings will be initiated. Pursuant to the said notice, the petitioner was forced to remit further amounts, which came to Rs.2,17,686/-. However, upon a subsequent application under Regulation 40, a certain amount of Rs.33,511/- was returned. Therefore, the petitioner now claims that, after adjusting the amount already refunded, the balance refundable amount is Rs.1,84,175/-.

4. However, a counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of respondents 1 and 2, wherein it is specifically contended that the writ petition is not maintainable, as Section 75 of the ESI Act provides an effective alternative remedy to the petitioner for such a dispute. It is maintained that, the petitioner’s institution falls within the ambit of the Act, under Section 1 (5) of the ESI Act, with effect from 04.08.2011, as the employer’s registration in Form No. 1 was submitted on the said date. A district code No.72000304250001305 was allotted to the establishment as per Form C11 dated 17.01.2013 directing the petitioner to comply with the provisions of the Act w.e.f. 04.08.2011. The petitioner failed to pay contribution for the period from 04.08.2011 to 31.01.2013.

5. Accordingly, a notice in Form C18 adhoc dated

20.05.2013 was issued proposing determination of contribution of Rs.6,04,838/- on assumed wages for the period from 04.08.2011 to 31.01.2013 affording opportunity to show cause within 30 days as to why the assessment should not be made as proposed, and also for filing of statement showing contribution actually due and was also given a chance for a personal hearing on 21.06.2013. However, the petitioner failed to pay contribution for the subsequent periods as well. Accordingly, Form C18 adhoc dated 11.02.2014 proposing determination of contribution of Rs.1,35,135/- on assumed wages for the period from 01.02.2013 to 31.05.2013 with personal hearing date on 26.02.2014 was issued. Then Form C18 adhoc dated 25.03.2014 proposing determination of contribution of Rs.2,36,486/- on assumed wages for the period from 01.06.2013 to 31.12.2013 with personal hearing date on

26.04.2014 was also issued.

6. In response to that the petitioner submitted a letter on

30.07.2014 stating that the petitioner’s Institution which is in