Territorial jurisdiction under the ESI Act lies where the workplace is situated, regardless of the assessment order's origin.

The Petitioner, a company with a site office in Kharsia, District Raigarh, challenged an order dated 13.10.2023 passed by the Respondent under Section 45A of the Employees' State Insurance (ESI) Act, 1948, which demanded ₹72,76,154/- in outstanding contributions.

The Petitioner filed an application under Section 75 read with Section 77 of the ESI Act before the Employees Insurance Court (Labour Court) at Raipur to quash the demand.

The Labour Court, Raipur, via order dated 04.09.2025, returned the application for want of territorial jurisdiction, noting that the workplace was in Raigarh and a Labour Court exists there.

The Petitioner approached the High Court contending that since the Respondent’s Regional Office is in Raipur, the Raipur Court maintains jurisdiction.

1. Whether the Labour Court at Raipur erred in returning the application for want of territorial jurisdiction when the impugned assessment order was issued by the Regional Office at Raipur.

2. Whether the writ petition is maintainable in light of available statutory remedies under the ESI Act.

The court primarily considered Section 45A of the ESI Act, 1948 regarding the determination of contributions.

The court primarily considered Section 45-AA, which mandates an appeal to the Appellate Authority against such assessments.

It further applied the principle of territorial jurisdiction based on the location of the workplace (Kharsia, Raigarh) and the availability of a specific forum (Labour Court, Raigarh).

The court also referenced the doctrine of exhaustion of statutory remedies, noting the Petitioner’s failure to comply with a previous High Court direction in WPL No. 196 of 2024 to approach the Appellate Authority.

The court found that the Labour Court, Raipur correctly determined it lacked jurisdiction because the actual workplace and the dispute-related employees were situated in Kharsia, District Raigarh, where a dedicated Labour Court is established.

While the Petitioner argued that the cause of action partially arose in Raipur where the order was passed, the Court emphasized that the employer's establishment was in Raigarh.

Furthermore, the Court noted that the Petitioner had previously filed a writ petition (WPL No. 196 of 2024), where it was explicitly granted liberty to pursue statutory remedies; however, instead of filing an appeal under Section 45-AA of the ESI Act, the Petitioner chose to file an application under Section 75/77 in the wrong territorial jurisdiction.

The Court affirmed that against an assessment under Section 45A, the proper course is an appeal under Section 45-AA.

Accordingly, the writ petition was dismissed.