Page No.# 1/3 GAHC010195542025 undefined THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : WP(C)/5870/2025 M/S TEA MANS WAREHOUSE (NOW DEFUNCT) AND ANR A PARTNERSHIP ESTABLISHMENT CEASED TO OPERATE ITS BUSINESS WITH EFFECT FROM 22.05.2019, HAVING ERSTWHILE PLACE OF BUSINESS SITUATED AT BEHARBARI, N.H. 37, GUWAHATI BY-PASS, REPRESENTED BY ITS ERSTWHILE PARTNER BY SRI ARNAB BORBORA 2: ARNAB BARBORA SON OF LATE D.N. BARBORA RESIDENT OF MANIK NAGAR NURSERY ZOO ROAD P.O- DISPUR GUWAHATI KAMRUP (METRO) ASSA VERSUS THE UNION OF INDIA AND 3 ORS REPRESENTED BY SECRETARY, MINISTRY OF LABOUR AND EMPLOYMENT, GOVERNMENT OF INDIA, SHRAM SHAKTI BHAVAN, RAFI MARG, NEW DELHI-110001 2:THE ASSISTANT DIRECTOR EMPLOYEES STATE INSURANCE CORPORATION PANCHDEEP BHAVAN REGIONAL OFFICE NORTH EASTERN REGION BAMUNIMAIDAM GUWAHATI-781021 3:THE AUTHORISED OFFICER EMPLOYEES STATE INSURANCE CORPORATION PANCHDEEP BHAVAN REGIONAL OFFICE Page No.# 2/3 NORTH EASTERN REGION BAMUNIMAIDAM GUWAHATI-781021 4:THE RECOVERY OFFICER EMPLOYEES STATE INSURANCE CORPORATION PANCHDEEP BHAVAN REGIONAL OFFICE NORTH EASTERN REGION BAMUNIMAIDAM GUWAHATI-78102 Advocate for the Petitioner : MR. AMIT GOYAL, MR. A CHOUDHURY Advocate for the Respondent : DY.S.G.I., SC, ESIC BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR MEDHI ORDER 15.10.2025 Heard Shri A. Goyal, learned counsel for the petitioners. Also heard Shri M. Smith, learned Standing Counsel, ESIC as well as Ms. M. Das, learned counsel appearing on instructions of Shri S.K. Medhi, learned C.G.C. The petitioners have put to challenge a communication dated 11.09.2024 issued by the Authorised Officer, Employees’ State Insurance Corporation whereby a demand has been made. It is the case of the petitioners that they are not covered under the ESI Act as the number of employees of the petitioners is less than the requisite number and the other employees are engaged by a contractor. Shri Smith, the learned Standing Counsel has however submitted that under the ESI Act, 1948, there is provision for appeal. He has specifically referred to Section 75 of the said Act. Upon a perusal of the statute holding the field, it appears that the statute has Page No.# 3/3 given a remedy of preferring an appeal. Shri Goyal, the learned counsel has submitted that there is a jurisdictional issue also. In the opinion of this Court, the aforesaid issue of jurisdiction can also be raised in the appeal which is to be considered by the appellate authority. In view of the above, the instant writ petition is closed giving liberty to the petitioners to prefer an appeal in accordance with law. JUDGE Comparing Assistant