The ESI Court must decide contribution disputes itself, rather than remand them to the Corporation.

The ESI Corporation issued a notice to Hardwick High School seeking contributions for the period from 16 March 2011 to 30 September 2014.

After a hearing, it passed an order under Section 45A of the Employees’ State Insurance Act, 1948, determining contributions of ₹2,50,793 on the basis of 11 employees and assumed wages of ₹8,250 per employee.

The school challenged that determination before the ESI Court under Section 75, disputing coverage and the employee and wage calculations.

The ESI Court found that attendance records indicated 10 workers and remitted the matter to the Corporation for redetermination.

The Corporation appealed against the remand order.

Whether the ESI Court, exercising original jurisdiction under Section 75 of the Act, was justified in remitting the matter to the Corporation or competent authority for redetermination

Whether the impugned order was sustainable when the ESI Court was required to adjudicate the matter itself rather than remit it to the ESI authorities

Sections 75 and 78 of the Employees’ State Insurance Act, 1948, confer original jurisdiction on the ESI Court to decide disputes specified in Section 75 and equip it with relevant civil-court powers, including compelling the production of documents and evidence.

Under M/s. Escorts Ltd. v. Regional Director, ESIC, ILR 1986 Kar 3595, the ESI Court’s jurisdiction is not appellate or limited to judicial review of a Section 45A determination; it is a superior, independent jurisdiction requiring the Court to decide the liability and its extent.

Remand to the Corporation is generally impermissible, except in exceptional circumstances where fresh consideration by the Corporation is absolutely necessary.

Employees’ State Insurance Corporation, Bhopal v. The Central Press, AIR 1977 SC 1351, was cited for the ESI Court’s mandatory duty to decide the dispute and its powers to obtain evidence.

The ESI Court had remitted the matter so the Corporation could reconsider the employee count and contribution despite having original jurisdiction to determine those questions.

Applying Escorts Ltd. and the statutory scheme, the High Court held that the ESI Court must assess the materials and evidence itself, and may call for further records where necessary; inadequate evidence is to be dealt with through the ordinary consequences of the evidential burden, not by remitting the matter to the Corporation.

The Court therefore found the remand to the Corporation contrary to law, while leaving the establishment free to produce fresh material before the ESI Court.

It set aside the ESI Court’s order of 30 October 2019 and remitted the application to that Court to decide in accordance with law.

The parties’ contentions were kept open, and the school was permitted to produce fresh material for consideration.