IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE NAGESH BHEEMAPAKA WRIT PETITION No.27655 of 2024

09.03.2026 Between:

TAO Contracts …Petitioner AND The Commissioner, Employees’ State Insurance Corporation (ESIC)

Panchdeep Bhawan, 5-9-23, Hill Fort Road, Adarsh Nagar, Hyderabad, Telangana-500063 & 3 others …Respondents

ORDER:

This Writ Petition is filed seeking a Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of respondent No.3 in issuing Warrant of Attachment through Form No. ESICP-12 under the Employees State Insurance Act, 1948 pursuant to proceedings in Proc.No.52Q/40828-1019 dated 11.09.2024 for recovery of an amount of Rs.6,57,244/- as illegal, arbitrary and violative of the principles of natural justice, and consequently to set aside the said proceedings.

2. Heard Ms.Lokireddy Madhavilatha, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Pasham Srinivasulu, learned Standing Counsel appearing for the respondents.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is a registered establishment under the Employees State Insurance Corporation and was allotted Code No.52000514690001099. It is contended that respondent authorities passed proceedings dated 17.07.2024 fixing liability on the petitioner for payment of contribution for the periods July, 2016 to August, 2017, January, 2018 to March, 2018 and February, 2019 to September, 2019. According to the petitioner, the liability was determined without providing proper opportunity of hearing.

4. It is further contended that during the relevant period, several workers engaged by the petitioner were only casual employees and in certain months no wages were paid due to absence of work and contracts. Therefore, according to the petitioner, contribution under the ESI Act would not arise for such periods. It is also the contention of the petitioner that the respondent authorities assumed inflated number of employees and incorrect wage figures while determining the liability under Section 45-A of the ESI Act, thereby resulting in an erroneous assessment.

5. The learned counsel further submits that the petitioner had received a show cause notice earlier during the COVID-19 pandemic and due to unavoidable circumstances the petitioner could not effectively place the relevant records before the authorities. However, without properly considering the petitioner’s explanation and records, the authorities proceeded to determine the liability and subsequently initiated recovery proceedings culminating in issuance of warrant of attachment of immovable property for recovery of Rs.6,57,244/-.

6. On the other hand, learned Standing Counsel for the respondents produced before this Court proceedings issued by the Employees State Insurance Corporation dated 24.07.2025 introducing New Amnesty Scheme, 2025, which provides an opportunity to employers to approach the authorities for settlement/withdrawal of pending disputes and recovery proceedings under the ESI Act. It is submitted that the petitioner can avail the benefit of the said scheme by submitting appropriate application before the competent authority and upon such application being filed, the same would be considered in accordance with the scheme.

7. Having regard to the submissions made by the learned counsel on either side and considering the fact that the respondents themselves have introduced the Amnesty Scheme, 2025 enabling employers to approach the authorities for settlement of disputes, this Court is of the opinion that the petitioner can avail the said remedy.

8. Accordingly, without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, the Writ Petition is disposed of permitting the petitioner to submit an appropriate application/representation before the concerned authority under the ESI Amnesty Scheme, 2025, along with all relevant documents and explanation.

9. Upon such application being filed by the petitioner, the respondents shall consider the same in accordance with the said scheme and pass appropriate or