Page No.# 1/5 GAHC010072962018 undefined THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : WP(C)/2295/2018 OIL INDIA LIMITED A GOVT. OF COMPANY, HAVING ITS REGISTERED OFFICE AT DULIAJAN, PO DULIAJAN, DIST. DIBRUGARH, PIN-786602, ASSAM, REP. BY ITS RESIDENT CHIEF EXECUTIVE VERSUS EMPLOYEES STATE INSURANCE CORPORATION. N E REGIONAL OFFICE AND 5 ORS. D NORTH EAST REGIONAL OFFICE, BAMUNIMAIDAN, GUWAHATI, IN THE DISTRICT KAMRUP, ASSAM 2:THE REGIONAL DIRECTOR EMPLOYEES STATE INSURANCE COROPORATION REGIONAL OFFICE BAMUNIMAIDAN GUWAHATI-21 IN THE DISTRICT OF KAMRUP (M) ASSAM 3:THE ASSISTANT DIRECTOR EMPLOYEES STATE INSURANCE CORPORATION REGIONAL OFFICE BAMUNIMAIDAN GUWAHATI-21 IN THE DISTRICT OF KAMRUP (M) ASSAM 4:THE RECOVERY OFFICER EMPLOYEES STATE INSURANCE CORPORATION REGIONAL OFFICE BAMUNIMAIDAN GUWAHATI-21 IN THE DIST. OF KAMRUP (M) ASSAM Page No.# 2/5 5:OIL INDIA TALIKA BHUKTA THIKA SHRAMIK SANGHA REP. BY ITS GENERAL SECRETARY DULIAJAN PO- DULIAJAN PIN-786602 DIST. DIBRUGARH ASSAM 6:THE PREDING OFFICER EMPLOYEES INSURANCE COURT DIBRUGARH DIST. DIBRUGARH PIN-78660 BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DEVASHIS BARUAH For the petitioner (s) : Mr. S. Chakraborty, Advocate For the respondent (s) : Mr. M. Smith, Advocate Date on which judgment is reserved : NA Date of pronouncement of judgment : 08.12.2025 Whether the pronouncement is of the Operative part of the judgment? : NA Whether the full judgment has been Pronounced? : Yes Heard Mr. S. Chakraborty, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner and Mr. M. Smith, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the ESI. 2. The petitioner herein has approached this Court challenging the order dated 04.04.2018 passed by the learned Presiding Officer, ESI Court, Dibrugarh whereby the learned ESI Court has Page No.# 3/5 directed the petitioner to deposit 25% of the amount of the total ESI contribution as a pre-deposit. 3. This Court duly takes note of Section 75 (2B) of the Employees’ State Insurance Act, 1948 (for short, ‘the Act of 1948’) and as the said provision has relevance, the same is reproduced herein under:- “75(2B) No matter which is in dispute between a principal employer and the Corporation in respect of any contribution or any other dues shall be raised by the principal employer in the Employees' Insurance Court unless he has deposited with the Court fifty per cent of the amount due from him as claimed by the Corporation: PROVIDED that the Court may, for reasons to be recorded in writing, waive or reduce the amount to be deposited under this sub- section.” 4. From a perusal of the above quoted Section, it transpires that whatever be the kind of dispute between the Principal Employer and the Corporation in respect to any contribution or other dues can only be raised by the Principal Employer in the Employees' Insurance Court when the Principal Employer had deposited with the Court 50% of the amount due from the Principal Employer as claimed by the Corporation. Further to that, the learned ESI Court has also been granted a discretion, for reasons to be recorded in writing, to waive or reduce the Page No.# 4/5 amount to be deposited under the said Sub-section (2B) of the Act of 1948. 5. In the backdrop of the above, it is seen that the petitioner herein had filed an application under Section 75 (2B) of the Act of 1948 seeking waiver of the deposit of the 50% of the alleged amount due from the petitioner. The ground on which the petitioner sought for the waiver is that the petitioner had already deposited an amount of Rs.76,41,563/- at the time of filing of the Appeal under Section 45-AA of the Act of 1948 and further, the petitioner had also deposited an amount of Rs.50,54,640/- as interest on the contribution demand. It is the case of the petitioner that no further amount ought to have been directed by the learned ESI Court, taking into account the materials on record. 6. The materials on record and more particularly the impugned order shows that the learned ESI Court had exercised its discretion to waive off 25% out of the 50% pre-deposit and it is under such circumstances the petitioner has approached this Court. 7. This Court having perused the order dated 04.04.2018 and in the opinion of this Court the discretion so exercised by the learned ESI Court calls for no interference in as much as there is Page No.# 5/5 no perversity or patent illegality committed by the learned ESI Court in passing of the order dated 04.04.2018. 8. This Court also duly takes note of the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner that the amount wherein payment is directed is compensation and as such there should have been a total waiver of the 50% pre-deposit. It is the opinion of this Court that a reading Section 75 (2B) of the Act of 1948, does not show any difference between contribution, interest as well as compensation. It merely stipulates contribution and any other dues. The compensation directed to be paid is a part falling under the ambit of “any other dues”. Under such circumstances, this Court finds no substance in the said submission. 9. Considering the above, this Court does not find this to be a fit case for exercising jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution. Accordingly, the writ petition stands dismissed. 10. There is no order as to costs. 11. The interim order passed earlier stands vacated. JUDGE Comparing Assistant