APHC010236362011 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH FRIDAY ,THE THIRTY FIRST DAY OF JANUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE NYAPATHY VIJAY CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL Between: T. Venkata Ratnam The Assistant Director Another and Others Counsel for the Appellant: 1. K V L NARASIMHA RAO Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. C RAGHU 2. V SESHA KUMARI The Court made the following: IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) FRIDAY ,THE THIRTY FIRST DAY OF JANUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE NYAPATHY VIJAY CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL NO: 631 OF 2011 AND The Assistant Director Another and Others ...RESPONDENT(S) Counsel for the Appellant: K V L NARASIMHA RAO Counsel for the Respondent(S): following: IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH [3460] FRIDAY ,THE THIRTY FIRST DAY OF JANUARY THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE NYAPATHY VIJAY 2011 ...APPELLANT ...RESPONDENT(S) THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE NYAPATHY VIJAY CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL No.631 of 2011 JUDGMENT: 1. The Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is filed under Section 82 of the Employees State Insurance Act, 1948, questioning the Judgment dated 19.04.2011 in E.S.I.O.P.No.01 of 2008 passed by the Senior Civil Judge-cum- Special Court for E.S.I. Act, Vijayawada. 2. The Appellant is the Petitioner. E.S.I.O.P.No.1 of 2008 was filed to set aside the Proceedings No. AP/SRO/V/INS-II/62-16007/101, dated 31.08.2005 and consequent attachment Orders dated 19.12.2005 issued by the respondent No.1. The Petitioner is a contractor for the execution of the work order assigned to him by the VTPS (A unit of AP GENCO), i.e the Respondent No.2. It was further stated that the Respondent No.2 has a hospital constructed in Ibrahimpatnam and the said hospital caters the medical requirements of the workers in the VTPS. The E.S.I Act applies only to the notified areas and the place of industrial activity of the petitioner and the respondent No.2 is not covered by the areas notified during the subject period. The trial Court dismissed the E.S.I OP on merits. Hence, the present Appeal. 3. Learned counsel for the Petitioner submits that this Court in W.P.No.27052 of 2006 had considered the similar issue after taking into consideration the submissions made by the learned Standing Counsel for ESI Corporation, it was held that the provisions of the Act would apply to the Ibrahimpatnam area of Krishna District, with effect from 01.01.2010. The relevant portion of the Order is extracted below: “ The short point involved in the Writ Petition is, whether the place where the organization of the third respondent is situated i.e., Ibrahimpatnam, Krishna District, is covered by the provisions of the ESI Act at the relevant point of time. The learned Standing Counsel for Respondent Nos. 1 and 2 filed a copy of the Notification dated 16.12.2009, which states that the Central Government appoints 1st January, 2010 as the date on which the provisions of Chapters IV, V and VI were brought into force in the area in question. In view of the same, the petitioner cannot be held liable for payment of arrears for the period prior to 01.01.2010 which are sought to be recovered under the Recovery Certificate dated 24.07.2001 and 22.02.2003 and therefore, the respondents have no jurisdiction in view of the above notification. The Writ Petition is accordingly allowed.” 4. In view of the above rendered decision, the Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is allowed as during the subject period, the Act was not notified to the area where the appellant is located. The miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall stand closed. __________________ NYAPATHY VIJAY, J Date: 31.01.2025 KK THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE NYAPATHY VIJAY CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL NO: 631 OF 2011 31.01.2025 KK