M/S DASHARATH SAHOO, JAGATSINGHPUR vs EMPLOYEES STATE INSURANCE CORPORATION (E.S.I.C) BHUBANESWAR
- Court
- Odisha High Court
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
W.P.(C) No.16268 of 2026
An application under Article 226 & 227 of Constitution of
India.
---------------
M/s Dasharath Sahoo, … … Petitioner
Jagatsinghpur
-Versus-
Employees’ State
Insurance Corporation,
(E.S.I.C.) Represented
through its Regional
Director, Bhubaneswar and
others
… … Opp. Parties
Advocates appeared in the case:
For Petitioner : Mr. S.S. Padhy, Advocate
Advocate
For Opp. Parties : Mr. Amarendra Prasad Ray,
Standing Counsel along with
Mr. L.D. Tripathy, Advocate
------------------
CORAM:
THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE MRUGANKA SEKHAR SAHOO
J U D G M E N T
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
nd
Date of Hearing and Judgment: 22 May, 2026
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
MRUGANKA SEKHAR SAHOO, J.
1 . The petitioner a proprietorship firm engaged in
business at Paradeep in the district of Jagatsinghpur, is
W.P.(C) No.16268 of 2026 Page 1 of 7
before this Court seeking intervention by exercising of
extraordinary writ jurisdiction under Articles 226 and 227
of the Constitution of India, challenging the Garnishee
Order dated 22.07.2025 (Annexure-1 of the writ application)
issued under section 45G of the Employees’ State Insurance
(ESI) Act, 1948 passed by the Recovery Officer. Also under
challenge is the order dated 01.12.2017 (Annexure-3) issued
by the Deputy Director -cum- Authorized Officer, ESI
Corporation whereby the petitioner establishment has been
directed to be covered from October, 2011 under the
provisions of the Act.
2. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner
that the petitioner is not aware of the proceeding U/S.45A of
the ESI Act, that was initiated by the authority and it is
contended that the petitioner was not ever served with any
notice.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner was asked to serve
copy of the writ application on the learned Standing Counsel
appearing for the opposite party nos.1 and 2-ESI
Corporation, accordingly, copy of the writ petition is served
on the learned Standing counsel for the opposite party nos.1
and 2.
4. Though the matter is listed for fresh admission, in the
interest of justice it is finally heard & disposed of on consent
of the learned counsel for the parties.
From the discussions that follows and the purport of
order that would be passed it would be apparent that no
purpose would be served in keeping the matter pending
W.P.(C) No.16268 of 2026 Page 2 of 7
before this Court and the issues raised should be answered
by the appropriate Court by going deep into the facts as well
as in detail.
5. Learned Standing Counsel referring to section 75 (1)(g)
of the Employees’ State Insurance Act, 1948 submits that
the petitioner is supposed to approach the Employees’
Insurance Court for challenging the orders which is sought
to be challenged in the present application.
For convenience of reference, the section 75(1)(g) is
reproduced herein:
“(1) If any question or dispute arises as to-
… … …
(g) any other matter which is in dispute between the
principal employer and the Corporation, or between
a principal employer and an immediate employer, or
between a person and the Corporation or between
an employee and a principal or immediate employer,
in respect of any contribution or benefit or other
46
dues payable or recoverable under this Act, [or,
any other matter required to be or which may be
decided by the Employees’ Insurance Court under
this Act],
such question or dispute 61[subject to the
provisions of sub-section (2-A)] shall be decided by
the Employees’ Insurance Court in accordance with
the provisions of this Act.”
6.
Learned Standing Counsel further refers to sections
77(1) and 77(1-A) and submits that the application has to
be made before the Employees’ Insurance Court within a
period of three years from the date on which the cause of
action arose. It is submitted, in the present case the cause
of action has to be treated to be arising on a date in March,
2013.
W.P.(C) No.16268 of 2026 Page 3 of 7
Sections 77(1) and 77(1-A) of the ESI Act, 1948 are
reproduced herein:
“(1) The Proceedings before an Employees’
Insurance Court shall be commended by
application.
67
[(1-A) Every such application shall be made
within a period of three years from the date on
which the cause of action arose.”
Learned Standing Counsel opposes the prayer made in
the writ petition.
7. Now, looking at the averments made in the writ
application as well as the annexures, it can be seen that the
order passed by the authority under section 45A of the ESI
Act has not been annexed as it is stated and contended that
the said order was never served on the petitioner.
8. The order under challenge dated 01.12.2017 states
“The factory/establishment has been provisionally covered
with effect from 01/01/0001 ( sic ) ” at paragraph 6 and it also
indicates the “period starting with October, 2011” at
paragraph 3; but the order by the Authorized Officer does
not refer to any earlier order or any other document that is
contemporaneous to ‘October, 2011’, so as to indicate that
the petitioner is liable from October, 2011.
The Garnishee order (Annexure-1) dated 22.07.2025
passed under section 45G also does not refer to any earlier
order nor to the order passed under section 45A that could
be on a date contemporaneous to ‘October, 2011’.
9. In the above scenario, from which date ‘three years’
can be calculated as prescribed in section 77 becomes a
W.P.(C) No.16268 of 2026 Page 4 of 7
nebulous issue as there cannot be any presumption to the
effect that the petitioner is covered from October, 2011 in
absence of the foundational facts/documents/orders of the
appropriate authority.
10. In the interest of justice and fair play and by exercising
the jurisdiction conferred under Article 226 of the
Constitution of India, this Court observes that since the
date of cause of action as prescribed in section 77 is not
evident, rather is obscure, the petitioner shall approach the
Employees’ Insurance Court having jurisdiction by filing
application under section 75)1)(g) within a period of eight
weeks.
11. It is further directed that upon application being made
before the learned District Judge–cum-Employees’
Insurance Court (E.I. Court) having jurisdiction, the Court
shall consider the application under section 75(1)(g) on
merits without detaining itself for considering the issuance
of condonation of delay in filing the application.
12. The petitioner shall make application seeking copy of
all relevant documents before the authority within a period
of fifteen working days from the date of issuance of certified
copy of this judgment.
The authority shall provide authenticated/certified
copies of relevant documents sought for within a period of
ten working days thereafter.
13. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner
and stated in the writ application that towards the amount
of Rs.10, 97, 161/-(rupees ten lakh ninety seven thousand
W.P.(C) No.16268 of 2026 Page 5 of 7
one hundred sixty one only) determined by the authority to
be payable by the petitioner, the bank account has been
frozen.
14. This Court further takes note of the proviso to section
75(2-B) which gives power to the E.I. Court to waive or
reduce the amount to be deposited. The petitioner shall
deposit/keep an amount of Rs.3,00,000/- (rupees three
lakh only) in the bank account to be kept on a high interest
being fixed deposit to the credit of the proceeding before the
learned E.I. court. The deposit shall be subject to the
proceeding before the learned E.I. Court and shall abide by
the orders to be passed by the said Court.
15. It is further directed section 75(2-B) which prescribes
for deposit of 50% of the amount demanded shall not be a
bar in any manner for entertaining application under
75(1)(g) after the petitioner deposits the amount of
Rs.3,00,000/- as fixed deposit and the certificate of deposit
shall be produced before the learned E.I. court. The fixed
deposit made by the petitioner shall abide by the orders that
would be passed by the learned E.I. court as directed above.
16. The petitioner as well the opposite parties shall have
liberty to raise all contentions before the Employees’
Insurance Court for consideration by the said Court
17. It is further clarified that no part of this order shall be
treated as expression of opinion of this Court regarding
merits of the case of the petitioner or opinion regarding the
contentions of the parties to the writ petition in any manner
whatsoever.
W.P.(C) No.16268 of 2026 Page 6 of 7
18. The Writ Application is disposed of with the above
observations.
(Mruganka Sekhar Sahoo)
Judge
Orissa High Court, Cuttack
nd
The 22 May, 2026/jyostna
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
Signed by: JYOSTNARANI MAJHEE
Reason: Authentication
Location: OHC
Date: 30-May-2026 12:54:45
W.P.(C) No.16268 of 2026 Page 7 of 7