1 2025:CGHC:11162 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPL No. 53 of 2022 1. M/s Dr. Shyama Prasad Mukharjee Thermal Power Station Through Oic Ajeet Tirkey 36 Yrs. S/o Shri E. Tirkey, Executive Engineer, O/o Ed (Generation), Dr. Shyama Prasad Thermal Power Plant Korba East Chhattisgarh. 2. Chhattisgarh State Power Generation Co. Ltd. Through Oic Ajeet Tirkey 36 Yrs. S/o Shri E. Tirkey, Executive Engineer, O/o Ed (Generation), Dr. Shyama Prasad Thermal Power Plant Korba East Chhattisgarh. --- Petitioner(s) versus 1. Employees State Insurance Corporation Through Deputy Director 107, Jagannath Chowk, Ram Nagar Road, Kota, Raipur Chhattisgarh. 2. Appellate Authority (Regional Director) O/o Regional Director, Employees State Insurance Corporation 107, Jagannath Chowk, Ram Nagar Road, Kota Raipur Chhattisgarh. --- Respondent(s) WITH WPL No. 54 of 2022 1. M/s Dr. Shyama Prasad Mukharjee Thermal Power Station Through Oic Ajeet Tirkey 36 Yrs., S/o Shri E. Tirkey, Executive Engineer, O/o Ed (Generation), Dr. Shyama Prasad Thermal Power Plant Korba-E,, Chhattisgarh 2. Chhattisgarh State Power Generation Co. Ltd. Through Oic Ajeet Tirkey 36 Yrs., S/o Shri E. Tirkey, Executive Engineer, O/o Ed (Generation), Dr. Shyama Prasad Thermal Power Plant Korba-E, ---Petitioner(s) Versus 2 1. Employees State Insurance Corporation Through Deputy Director, 107, Jagannath Chowk, Ram Nagar Road, Kota, District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh 2. Appellate Authority (Regional Director) O/o Regional Director, Employees State Insurance Corporation, 107, Jagannath Chowk, Ram Nagar Road, Kota, District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh --- Respondent(s) WITH WPL No. 56 of 2022 1. M/s Hasdeo Thermal Power Station Through Oic Sanjit Tigga, 37 Years, S/o Shri Bk Tigga, Ee (Hr), O/o Ed (Generation) Hasdeo Thermal Power Station Korba West District Korba Chhattisgarh. 2. Chhattisgarh State Power Generation Co. Ltd. Through Oic Sanjit Tigga, 37 Years, S/o Shri Bk Tigga, Ee (Hr), O/o Ed (Generation) Hasdeo Thermal Power Station Korba West District Korba Chhattisgarh. ---Petitioner(s) Versus 1. Employees State Insurance Corporation Through- Deputy Director, 107, Jagannath Chowk, Ram Nagar Road, Kota Raipur Chhattisgarh. 2. Appellate Authority (Regional Director) O/o Regional Director, Employees State Insurance Corporation, 107, Jagannath Chowk, Ram Nagar Road, Kota Raipur Chhattisgarh. --- Respondent(s) For Petitioners : Mr. Raja Sharma, Advocate For Respondents : Mr. Pranav Saxena, Advocate Hon’ble Shri Justice Rakesh Mohan Pandey Judgment On Board 06/03/2025 1) The petitioners have filed these petitions against the orders impugned passed by the learned Employees’ Insurance Court, Korba (C.G.) dated 21.06.2021 (Annexure P/1 in all petitions) in Case Nos. 17/ESI/2013, 16/ESI/2013 and 15/ESI/2013 respectively whereby 3 applications moved by the petitioners U/s 65 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 were rejected. 2) Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that initially applications U/o 11 Rule 12 of CPC were moved seeking direction to respondents to produce documents. He further submits that those applications were allowed by learned Court below vide orders dated 13.12.2019 but the respondents failed to place on record those documents, therefore, the applications U/s 65 of the Act, 1872 were moved in all cases. He contends that learned Court below vide orders dated 21.06.2021 rejected the applications on the ground that documents are already on record. He further contends that when the respondents failed to place on record the documents, learned Court below ought to have allowed the applications moved U/s 65 of the Act, 1872. 3) On the other hand, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents submits that in Case Nos. 17/ESI/2013 and 16/ESI/2013, respondents are ready to provide 24 documents out of 26 documents and in Case No. 15/ESI/2013, respondents are ready to provide 75 documents out of 76 documents. He further submits that most of the documents have already been placed on record. 4) Heard. 5) Taking into considerations the submission made by Mr. Saxena, these writ petitions stand disposed of with a direction to the respondents to provide documents according to the averments made in the affidavits submitted before this Court. The documents which have not been placed on record, petitioners would be entitled to prove the contents of those documents by leading secondary evidence. Respondents would also be at liberty to challenge the relevancy and admissibility of those 4 documents. 6) With the aforesaid direction(s), these writ petitions stand disposed of. Interim relief granted earlier stands vacated. Sd/- (Rakesh Mohan Pandey) JUDGE Ajinkya