- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC:15404 WP No. 60154 of 2016 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 15TH DAY OF APRIL, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE B M SHYAM PRASAD WRIT PETITION NO. 60154 OF 2016 (L-ESI) BETWEEN: SITEL INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED PREVIOUSLY KNOWN AS SITEL OPERATING CORPORATION INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED, A COMPANY REGISTERED UNDER THE COMPANIES ACT, 1956, HAVING ITS NEW REGISTERED OFFICE AT BOOMERANG, NO.501, WIND A & B1, 5TH FLOOR, CHANDIVALI-FARM ROAD, NEAR CHANDIVALI STUDIO, ANDHERI EAST MUMBAI, MUMBAI-400 072, REPRESENTED BY ITS AUTHORIZED SIGNATORY, MS. JOLLY MEHROTRA. …PETITIONER (BY SRI. J. KANIKARAJ, ADVOCATE FOR SRI.SHYAM SUNDAR H V.,ADVOCATE) AND: 1. THE DEPUTY DIRECTOR REGIONAL OFFICE (KARNATAKA) EMPLOYEES STATE INSURANCE CORPORATION, NO.10, BINNYFIELD, BINNYPET, BENGALURU-560 023. Digitally signed by VANAMALA N Location: High Court of Karnataka - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC:15404 WP No. 60154 of 2016 2. ITC LIMITED VIRGINIA HOUSE, 37, J.L. NEHRU ROAD, KOLKATA-700 071, REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR. 3. ITC INFOTECH INDIA LIMITED VIRGINIA HOUSE, 37, J.L. NEHRU ROAD, KOLKATA-700 071, REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI.K. KASTURI., SENIOR ADVOCATE FOR SRI. J. PRADEEP KUMAR, ADVOCATE FOR R2 & R3; SRI.N.S. NARASIMHA SWAMY, ADVOCATE FOR R1) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE ORDER DATED 24.6.2016 PASSED BY THE LEARNED EMPLOYEES STATE INSURANCE COURT, BENGALURU ON I.A.NO.2 IN ESI NO.1 OF 2011 REJECTING THE AMENDEMENT APPLICATION AT ANNEXURE-A. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINAY HEARING IN 'B' GROUP, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE B M SHYAM PRASAD - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC:15404 WP No. 60154 of 2016 ORAL ORDER The petitioner has called in question the order dated 24.06.2016 in E.S.I.No.01/2011 on the file of Employees State Insurance Court [for short, 'the ESI Court']. The ESI Court, by the impugned order dated 24.06.2016, has rejected the petitioner's application under Order VI Rule 17 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 [the CPC]. The petitioner in filing this application has proposed three amendments along with the application under Section 75 of the Employees State Insurance Act, 1948 [for short, 'the ESI Act']. The details of the amendments are: [a] To change the description of the petitioner from M/s. SITEL Operating Corporation India Private Limited to M/s. SITEL India Private Limited. [b] To include paragraph 4A which reads as under: "The Applicant submits that as per the terms of the Common Services Agreement (including its subsequent renewals/addendum) entered into with the Respondent No.2. It was obliged to pay such sums to the Respondent No.2 for the services rendered by Respondent No.2 like perimeter - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC:15404 WP No. 60154 of 2016 Conservancy, Perimeter Security. Parking facility for t1wo wheelers and cars, maintenance & lighting of internal feeder roads etc. It is further submitted that the Applicant had no say in the maintenance of the common services and the where and how of those activities are known only to Respondent No.2 and therefore only Respondent No.2 can say that the employees have been covered under ESI Act as the Applicant would not be privy to those contracts." This is referred to as the second amendment [c] Inclusion of prayer for directions to the second respondent to pay contribution of the employees engaged to render services in the common areas. This Court must record that it is stated in unison that there is no controversy over the first amendment. This narrows down the consideration in the present petition. On the merits of the petitioner's request for the next amendment, this Court has granted interim order staying the proceedings before the ESI Court. 2. Sri J. Kanakaraj, the learned counsel for the petitioner, submits that [a] the proposed second - 5 - NC: 2025:KHC:15404 WP No. 60154 of 2016 amendment is an amplification of the petitioner's defense; [b] the petitioner has signed a Lease Agreement and a separate Common Area Management Agreement with the second respondent; [c] that the petitioner, apart from paying rents, also pays maintenance charges to the second respondent; [d] that the second respondent engages the requisite personnel on his own to extend common services such as security, parking and lighting for the common passage; [e] that the second respondent would know the details of the persons engaged; [f] that if any controversy is to be raised, it should be against the second respondent and not the petitioner. The learned counsel emphasizes that the ESI Court further has rejected the application solely on the ground that the amendment changes the nature of the proceedings. 3. Sri K. Kasturi, the learned Senior Counsel for the second and third respondents, though initially - 6 - NC: 2025:KHC:15404 WP No. 60154 of 2016 proposed to canvass on the maintainability of the petition, ultimately supports the ESI Court's interim order inviting this Court's attention to the admissions as recorded by the ESI Court in the impugned order. The learned Senior Counsel argues that the proceedings do not relate to the Common Area Maintenance for which they need separate agreements, but the proceedings relate to the men hired by the petitioner for its service. 4. Sri K. Kasturi emphasizes that the ESI Inspector, who is examined as witness, as referred to by the ESI Court, has categorically deposed that he has inspected the petitioner's premises and observed that it has engaged electricians, plumbers, security guards and house keeping pantry and other staff and that this makes up the basis for initiation of proceedings. The learned Senior Counsel argues that the petitioner, in seeking the addition of the paragraph and the prayer, is trying to deflect the core - 7 - NC: 2025:KHC:15404 WP No. 60154 of 2016 issue that has to be considered by the ESI Court. The learned Senior Counsel also emphasizes that this Court must take note that this application is filed at the very fag end of the proceedings. 5. This Court must observe that if the petitioner has availed remedy under Section 75 of the ESI Act as against an order under Section 45-A thereof, it must substantiate its grievance to ensure that the order, if found impermissible in law, is annulled and that if the petitioner so succeeds, it would be for the authorities concerned under the ESI Act to take action as is required. The petitioner insists that the proceedings must be against the second or third respondents. When the request for amendment of the prayer is examined thus, this Court must opine that the ESI Court is justified in its conclusion that the amendment, if allowed, would enlarge this Court's proceedings and therefore, no - 8 - NC: 2025:KHC:15404 WP No. 60154 of 2016 exception can be taken with the rejection of this request. 6. The next question is the inclusion of the proposed paragraph 4A. This Court must in this context observe that if the petitioner contends that the proceedings under Section 45-A of the ESI Act relates to the personnel who were engaged by the second respondent for common area maintenance/facilities, the second and third respondents assert that the proceedings relate to the personnel engaged by the petitioner on its own rules for its purposes, and that is an aspect which must be considered by the ESI Court. 7. The second amendment, when so examined, as is rightly contended by Sri J. Kanakaraj, amplifies the petitioner's defense as against the orders under Section 45 of the ESI Act. Therefore, this Court must opine that the ESI authorities should have made this distinction while - 9 - NC: 2025:KHC:15404 WP No. 60154 of 2016 considering the merits of the petitioner's application. This Court must also hasten to add that this Court's opinion on the merit of the second amendment as aforesaid cannot in any manner reflect on the evidence or due consideration thereof for examining the petitioner's grievance with the order under Section 45A of the ESI Act. This Court further is of the opinion that this amendment would not prejudice the second and third respondents, as it will have to be seen in the context of the evidence that is let in by the parties. In the light of the afore, the following: ORDER [A] The petition is allowed in part modifying the ESI Court's order dated 24.06.2016 [Annexure-A] allowing the petitioner's application only insofar as amendment to its description and insertion of paragraph 4A. - 10 - NC: 2025:KHC:15404 WP No. 60154 of 2016 [B] The petitioner shall ensure that the amendment is carried out expeditiously, and in any event, by the next date of hearing before the ESI Court, which shall endeavor to dispose of the proceedings as expeditiously as possible. Sd/- (B M SHYAM PRASAD) JUDGE SA ct:sr