i IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH :: AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) WEDNESDAY, THE NINTH DAY OF APRIL TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE SUBBA REDDY SATTI WRIT PETITION NO: 8452 OF 2025 r' Between: Andhra Pradesh Corporation For Outsourced Services Block, 2"^^ Floor, T.N.Bus Stand, Vijayawada, Krishna District, its Managing Director NTR Administrative A.P. Rep. by ...PETITIONER AND 1 Employees State Insurance Corporation, Ministry of Labour Employment, Government of India, Panchdeep Bhavan, Comrade Indrajeet Gupta Marg, New Delhi - 110 002. Rep. by its Director of General. and 2. Employees State Insurance Corporation, Ministry of Labour Employment, Government of India, Regional Office and ESI Road, Gunadala, Vijayawada, A.P - 520 004. Rep. by its Regional Director 3. Union of India, Employees State Insurance Corporation, Ministry of Labour and Employment, Mansing Road, Nirman Bhavan Chanikyapuri, New Delhi -110 011. Rep. by its Secretary. ...RESPONDENTS Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution Of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court be pleased to issue a writ of certiorari may any other appropriate writ direction calling for the records reiating to the orders of the 2"" i passed in demand notice No. AP/ROA/JA/MEC/62-62-041084.005-1001 dt. 18.2.2025 for payment of or or respondent arrears of contribution of Rs. 13,04,160/- for the period from October 2020 to December 2020 of Outsourced Employees I working in the Ongole Municipal Corporation, Prakasham District arbitrary and quash the same. as illegal, lA NO: 1 OF 2025 Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to stay all further proceedings in pursuance to the order of the 2 respondent nd passed AP/ROA/JA/MEC/62-62-041084.005-1001, in dt.18.2.2025, pending disposal of the writ petition. Counsel for the Petitioner: SRI K. BHEEMA RAO Counsel for the Respondent Nos.1 & 2: SMT.S. SIVA KUMARI, SC FOR ESI Counsel for the Respondent No.3: SRI PASALA PONNA RAO, DEPUTY SOLICITOR GENERAL OF INDIA The Court made the following: ORDER > APHC010159922025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) ■ L> Ti"' [3331] in WEDNESDAY ,THE NINTH DAY OF APRIL TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE SUBBA REDDY SATTI WRIT PETITION NO: 8452/2025 Between: Andhra Pradesh Corporation For Outsourced Services AND Employees State Insurance Corporation and Others Counsel for the Petitioner: 1.K BHEEMA RAO Counsel for the Respondent{S): 1.S SIVA KUMARI ...PETITIONER ...RESPONDENT(S) The Court made the following: :: ORDER :: Impugning the proceedings issued by the Deputy Director, State Insurance Corporation vide No.AP/ROA/JA/MEC/62-62-041084-005- 1001, dated 18.02.2025 (C-18) (Actual), the above writ petition is filed. Heard Sri K. Bheema Rao, learned Smt. Siva Kumari, learned Standing Counsel, Employees 2. counsel for the petitioner, and appeared for respondents 1 & 2. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit Andhra Pradesh issued G.O.Ms.No.126 that the Government of General Administration (SU.I) i SRS,J WP.No.8452 of 2025 Department, dated 18.10.2019, regarding policy and guidelines on recruitment of persons on Outsourcing / Contract basis, intending to prevent corruption in recruitment and to create a seamlessly hassle free system for payment of statutory benefits to the outsource manpower every month. With that object, the petitioner-corporation was established. As per the Rules and Norms, the petitioner-corporation ensures payment of statutory benefits such Employees Provident Fund (EPF) and Employees’ State Insurance (ESI) to the outsourced employees. The payment of the amount to the ESI would depend upon the payment of wages by the concerned Department. Whenever the amount is paid by the employer, the petitioner’s Corporation has been depositing the amount to the ESI Corporation qua the outsourced employees. as Be that as it may, the notice impugned was issued, directing the petitioner-corporation to pay Rs. 13,04,160/- from Cctober 2020 to outsourced employees working in Cngole Municipal Corporation, Prakasam District. The Commissioner, Cngole Municipal Corporation, addressed a letter to the petitioner-corporation vide Roc.No.0615/2019/F2, dated 21.01.2025, to furnish the payment of contributions from Cctober 2020 to March 2021 of the outsourced employees working in Municipal Corporation, Cngole. In reply, the petitioner-corporation addressed a letter vide Lrrt.No.5/F.No.3/APCCS/ ESI/2024-25, dated 23.01.2025, stating that the petitioner-corpo ration has begun to register the outsourced employees from January 2021 onwards, as also the payments. As the ESI portal did not allow the payment of back dates i.e. from Cctober, November & December 2020, the Corporation could not pay the amount. The respondent-corporation, without following the procedure contemplated in Section 45 of the Employees’ State Insurance Act (hereinafter referred as ‘the Act’), issued the notice impugned. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner, while reiterating the averments made in the affidavit, further contended that no notice under Section 45-A of the Act was issued to the petitioner-corporation and no opportunity of hearing was 5. X Page :rof 6 SRS.J W.P.No.8452 of 2025 provided. Without issuing notice under Section 45-A of the Act and Form C-18 (Actual), passing the impugned notice is illegal and arbitrary. Learned Standing Counsel appearing for respondents 1 & 2 would submit that the petitioner collected ESI contribution from the Municipal Corporation. The Municipal Corporation, Ongole, informed the payment made by the petitioner and forwarded the invoices to the ESI Corporation. As per the invoices forwarded to the ESI Corporation, the officials determined the amount and issued Form C-18 (Actual) to the petitioner. Since the amount was determined, based upon the invoices forwarded by the Municipal Corporation, no notice under Section 45-A of the Act is mandated. Learned counsel would also submit that the petitioner, without availing the alternative remedy, filed the above writ petition and, thus, prayed to dismiss the writ petition. 6. 7. The point for consideration is : “Whether the notice impugned i.e. Form C-18 (Actual) issued to the petitioner, is legally sustainable”? As seen from the averments made in the affidavit, there is no dispute that the petitioner received the amount from the Municipal Corporation, Ongole, towards remuneration of the outsourced employees. In para no.5 of the affidavit, it was pleaded that a reply was submitted by the petitioner to the Ongole Municipal Corporation about registering outsourced employees in ESI roles of APCOS from January 2021 onwards. It was further pleaded as follows: 8. “the payments were also made from January 2021 as the ESI Portal will not allow payments of back date i.e. earlier payments of October, November and December 2020 as the salaries were paid by the Government in the month of December 2020 and on account of the technical reason this corporation not able to pay the said amounts.” SRS.J W.P No.8452 of ^25 9. Thus, the petitioner is not disputing regarding receipt of the amount from the Municipal Corporation, Ongole and their liability contribution to the Corporation. The only reason offered by the petitioner that the employees were registered with the Corporation from January 2021 onwards, and hence, the amount could not be paid to the Corporation. While considering the scope of Section 45-A of the Act, the Division Bench of the Madras High Court in The Deputy Director of Employees State Insurance Corporation v. the Management of SRTC Tech Private Limited in W.A.No.2171 of 2023, observed as follows; “5 As per Section 45-A, ibid, when the records are not produced or maintained, based on the available records with the ESI Corporation, a notice in Form C-18 (ad hoc) shall be issued and thereafter, the contribution should be determined based on the records, which means that an opportunity should be given to the employer to submit his objection and dispute the records available with the ESI Corporation. Insofar as Form C-18 (actual), the documents available with the ESI Corporation, whether they have been produced by the establishment collected from the establishment, it is the duty of the establishment either to dispute or question the demand made In Form C-18 (actuals). to pay ESI IS 10. Solutions or 10 The ESI Corporation is adopting two methods of recovering contributions from the employer, one is by issuing Form C-18 (ad hoc) and the other is by Issuing Form C-18 (actual). Section 45-A of the ESI Act extracted supra, deals with the situation of a claim made In Form C- 18(ad hoc) and not with regard to Form C-18 (actuals).” 11. As observed supra, in the case at hand, there is no dispute that the petitioner received the amount from the Municipal Corporation, Ongole respect of the outsourced employees. The Municipal Corporation, Ongole, submitted the facts to the ESI Corporation. Based on the facts submitted by , in P??e 5 of 6 4 SRS.J W.P.No 8452 of 2025 the Municipal Corporation, Ongole, the contribution amount was determined, and Form C-18 (actual) was issued to the petitioner. Since there is no dispute regarding the receipt of the amount by the petitioner from the Municipal Corporation, Ongole, in respect of outsourced employees, and the petitioner is liable to pay the amount towards ESI contribution. Given the judgment of the Madras High Court, in the opinion of this Court that the Corporation need not issue Form C-18 (actual) to the petitioner. If the petitioner is aggrieved by Form C-18 (actual), the petitioner must approach the Tribunal constituted under Section 75(2)(a) of the Act. 12. The petitioner should have availed the alternative remedy, which is effective, provided under the Act. Instead, the petitioner filed the writ petition contending a violation of Principles of Natural Justice and the procedure. However, as discussed supra, this Court doesn’t find any violation of natural Justice as also statutory provisions, prima facie. The Tribunal, being a fact finding authority, will be in a better position to look into all the documents. Invoking extraordinary Jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, in the facts of this case, in the considered opinion of this Court, is unwarranted. Hence, this Court does not find any merit in the writ petition and is liable to be dismissed. 13. Given the facts and circumstances of the case, the Writ Petition is dismissed. However, this order will not preclude the petitioner from approaching the appropriate forum as per the provisions of the Act. No order as to costs. 14. As a sequel, pending miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall stand closed. Sd/- K. TATA RAO DEPUTY REGISTRAR //TRUE COPY// SECTION OFFICER To, 1. One CC to Sri K. Bheema Rao, Advocate [OPUC] 2. One CC to Smt. S. Siva Kumari, Advocate [OPUC] 3. One CC to Sri Pasala Ponna Rao, Deputy Solicitor General of India, High Court of A.P.[OPUC] 4. Three CD Copies. ssb HIGH COURT DATED:09/04/2025 ORDER WP.No.8452 of 2025 O CS'j 3 0 MAY 2025 m: •■.*o 02»// 'k DISMISSING THE W.P. WITHOUT COSTS