IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE NAGESH BHEEMAPAKA WRIT PETITION No.15797 of 2020

28.11.2025 Between:

M/s. New Scholars Degree College …Petitioner AND The Employees State Insurance Corporation & two others …Respondents

ORDER:

The petitioner challenges the proceedings of the respondents dated

04.06.2020, 27.08.2020, and 02.09.2020 relating to assessment and recovery under the Employees' State Insurance Act, 1948 (for short “ the ESI Act”), and seeks refund of the amount of Rs.2,17,200/- deposited at the time of filing an appeal under Section 45-AA of the ESI Act.

2. Heard Sri V. Narasimha Goud, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Pasham Srinivasulu, learned Standing Counsel for ESIC, for the respondents.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that petitioner’s college was established in the year 1993. He submits that the respondents have implicated the petitioner’s college in order to bring it under the purview of the ESI Act by submitting a false report, wherein the ESI Inspector is alleged to have reported on 26.12.2018 that the petitioner’s college had engaged about 30 employees. He submits that the petitioner’s college never employed more than ten employees and that the ESI Inspector wrongly reported thirty employees, resulting in illegal coverage under the ESI Act. He submits that after the matter was remanded by the appellate authority in 2016, no further notice or opportunity was given, and the impugned order dated 04.06.2020 was passed after a long and unexplained delay, violating principles of natural justice. He submits that the respondents have wrongly demanded interest and attempted double recovery for periods during which contributions were already paid by the petitioner. He further submits that the amount of Rs.2,17,200/- deposited under Section 45-AA of the ESI Act has not been refunded.

4. Learned Standing Counsel for the respondents submits that the ESI Inspector conducted a proper inspection on 26.12.2008, verified the wage registers, found thirty employees, and the Principal acknowledged the inspection report. He submits that several opportunities of hearing were given on multiple dates, but the petitioner failed to produce any records to support the claim of having only ten employees. He submits that the orders passed under Section 45-Aand the consequential demand including interest were strictly in accordance with the ESI Act and Rules. He further submits that the Writ Petition is not maintainable as the petitioner has an effective alternative remedy under Section 75 of the ESI Act.

5. Having considered the facts and circumstances of the case, this Court is of the view that the issues raised by the petitioner, including the number of employees, correctness of the inspection report, validity of the assessment, and liability for contribution and interest, involve disputed questions of fact which require examination of records and evidence. Such matters cannot be effectively adjudicated in writ proceedings under Article 226 of the Constitution. Since the ESI Act provides a specific and efficacious statutory remedy under Section 75, the proper course for the petitioner is to approach the Employees’ Insurance Court.

6. Accordingly, the Writ Petition is disposed of, granting liberty to the petitioner to avail the remedy under Section 75 of the ESI Act. The time spent in pursuing this Writ Petition shall not be counted for the purpose of limitation. The interim order passed by this Court on 17.09.2020 shall continue until the petitioner avails the said alternative remedy. No costs.

Pending miscellaneous applications, if any, shall stand closed.

____________________________ NAGESH BHEEMAPAKA, J Dated 28.11.2025 myk