Advocates:
['PREM DAYAL BOHRA', 'AKSHAT VERMA', '', 'PAREEK']

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT

JODHPUR

S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 10254/2019

1.

Jai Jagdamba Public School Sansthan, Through The

Secretary Hemant S/o Mahendra Kumar, Age 28 Years

Address- 31, Rajiv Gandhi Gandhi Colony, Pali Marwar

(Rajasthan).

2.

Jai Jagdamba Uchh Madhyamik Vidhyalaya, 31, Rajiv

Gandhi Colony District-Pali (Rajasthan).

3.

Om Prakash S/o Mahendra Kumar, Aged About 38 Years,

By Caste Mewara, Head Master Of Jai Jagdamba Uch

Madhyamik Vidhyalaya, 31, Rajiv Gandhi Colony, Pali

Marwar District Pali (Rajasthan).

----Petitioners

Versus

1.

The Judge, Employees State Insurance Court, Pali,

Rajasthan

2.

Dy Director, Employees State Insurance Corporation, 1/3

And 1/4 Pal Link Road, Jodhpur (Rajasthan).

3.

The Social Security Officer, Employees State Insurance

Corporation Local Office- Near Railway Station, Pali

(Rajasthan).

4.

Authorized Officer, Employees State Of Insurance

Corporation, Jaipur (Rajasthan).

5.

Bhanwar Lal S/o Viradi Chand Ji, Aged About 70 Years, By

Caste Kalal, Resident Of 97, Himmat Nagar, Pali Marwar,

District Pali (Rajasthan).

----Respondents

For Petitioner(s)

:

Mr. P.D. Bohra

For Respondent(s)

:

Mr. Akshat Verma

HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE REKHA BORANA

Order

21/12/2022

Reportable

The present writ petition has been filed against the order

dated 24.05.2019 passed by the Employees State Insurance

Court, Pali, whereby an application for temporary injunction

preferred by the petitioner-school has been rejected.

(2 of 6)

[CW-10254/2019]

Two preliminary objections have been raised by learned

counsel for the respondents:

(i) First, that the present writ petition is not maintainable in terms

of Section 82 of the Employees’ State Insurance Act, 1948

(hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act of 1948’). In support of his

argument, learned counsel relied upon a judgment of Hon’ble

Allahabad High Court in the case of Modi Steel Unit-A Vs.

Employees’ State Insurance Court (S.D.M.), Ghaziabad and

Ors. (F.A.F.O. Nos.827 and 828 of 1980) decided on

13.03.1984.

(ii) Second, that the petitioner-school did not deposit 50% of the

recovery amount in compliance of Section 75(2B) of the Act of

1948, therefore, the petitioner itself could not have been heard by

the court.

Replying to the said objections, learned counsel appearing

for the petitioners submitted that as held by Bombay High Court in

the case of Abdul Shakur Umar Sahigara and Co. Vs.

Regional Director, Employees State Insurance Corporation

reported in (2004) 101 FLR 1126 and in the matter of

Employees State Insurance Corporation Vs. Force Motors

Ltd. reported in (2008) 118 FLR 526, an appeal against an

interlocutory order or procedural order which does not finally

decide the rights or liabilities of the parties would not lie in terms

of Section 82 of the Act of 1948 and therefore, the present writ

petition is maintainable before this Court.

So far as the second objection is concerned, learned counsel

for the petitioners fairly submitted that the petitioner-school is

bound and is willing to deposit 50% of the demanded amount

(3 of 6)

[CW-10254/2019]

before the court below in terms of Section 75(2B) of the Act of

1948.

So far as the question of maintainability of the present writ

petition is concerned, in Abdul Shakur Umar Sahigara’s case

(supra), while interpreting the word ‘Order’, the Hon’ble Bombay

High Court held as under :

“With the understanding of the above

distinction if one puts a question as to against

which order an appeal lies u/s 82, the logical

answer would be that it lies against such order

which is enforceable as if it is a decree passed in

a suit by a Civil Court. Therefore, an appeal u/s

82 of the Act shall lie against an order which has

the characteristics of a decree. Such orders

could be only those orders passed u/s 75 of the

Act which have flavour of or trapp