1 2026:CGHC:10912 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPL No. 246 of 2025 1 - M/s Brothers Engineering And Erectors Ltd. 17/6, 6th Street, Nandanam Extension, Chennai, Tamil Nadu - 600035 Through Its Project Manager Sanjay Kumar Sharma, S/o Late Shri Ashok Sharma, Presently Aged About 40 Years, R/o Kasim Para Near Torwa Chowk, Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh 495001 ... Petitioner(s) versus 1 - Employees State Insurance Corporation Through Its Regional Director, 107, Ramnagar Road, Kota, Raipur, Chhattisgarh 492010 ... Respondent(s) For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Aman Tamboli, Advocate For Respondent(s) : Mr. Pankaj Singh, Advocate Hon’ble Shri Justice Sachin Singh Rajput Order on Board 02/03/2026 This writ petition has been filed by the petitioner claiming following reliefs : 10.1 That this Hon'ble Court be pleased to call for entire records of the case, in the interest of justice. 10.2 That this Hon'ble Court be pleased to set-aside the impugned order dated 04.09.2025 (Annexure P-1) in the interest of justice. 10.3 That this Hon'ble Court be pleased to direct the learned Employees Insurance Court, Raipur (C.G.) to register the 2 application filed by the petitioner under Section 75 r/w Section 77 of the ESI Act, 1948 and decide the same on its own merits, in the interest of justice. 10.4 That this Hon'ble Court be further pleased to pass such other order(s) or direction(s), as this Hon'ble Court may deem fit including the costs of the petition under the facts and in the circumstance of the case and in the interest of justice. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the challenge in this writ petition is to an order dated 04.09.2025 by the learned Judge of Employees Insurance Court, Labour Court No. 1, Raipur, CG (for short Labour Court) by which it has returned the application filed by the petitioner under Section 75 r/w 77 of Employees State Insurance Act, 1948 (for short ESI Act) on account of want of jurisdiction. He submits that by filing the above stated application the petitioner has prayed for quashment of the order dated 13.10.2023 passed by the respondent under Section 47- A ESI Act and subsequent demand notices and proceedings carried by the respondent. He further submits that the petitioner had established a site office at Care of R.K. Goyal & Sons, Room No. 54, TTT Colony, behind Kamala Nehru School, Kharsia, District Raigarh, Chhattisgarh. The said address was duly furnished to the respondent at the time of registration of the said sub-unit, strictly in accordance with the provisions of the ESI Act. He further submits that the work entrusted to it at the KMPCL site was completed in February, 2018, and upon due inspection, SEPCO Electric Power Construction Corp. issued a completion certificate dated 30.07.2018. During the pendency of the project, the petitioner regularly deposited the statutory contributions payable to the Employees’ State Insurance Corporation, including the contribution for the period up to February, 2018. However, the utter surprise of the petitioner, the respondent issued 3 an order dated 13.10.2023 under Section 45A of the Act, directing recovery of a sum of 72,76,154/- alleging outstanding contributions for the period ₹ from 01.09.2018 to 30.04.2023, despite the fact that the project stood completed and the site office ceased to function much prior thereto. Aggrieved by the said arbitrary and illegal order dated 13.10.2023 and the consequential recovery proceedings, the petitioner has approached the Labour Court by filing the present application seeking quashment of the impugned order and all actions arising therefrom. It is clearly borne out from the application filed by the petitioner as well as the documents placed on record that the workplace of the petitioner was situated at Kharsia, District Raigarh, Chhattisgarh. It is further evident that the order under Section 45A of the ESI Act, in respect of the petitioner employees has been issued by the Regional Office of the Employees’ State Insurance Corporation, Raipur. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that even assuming the Court at Raigarh has jurisdiction, the territorial jurisdiction of the Court at Raipur is not ousted. The impugned order was passed by the respondent at Raipur and, therefore, a part of the cause of action arose within the territorial jurisdiction of the Court at Raipur. Consequently, the return of the application by the impugned order is bad in law. 3. Learned counsel for the respondent opposes the submission and contends that the challenge before the Labour Court, Raipur pertains to the order dated 13.10.2023 passed under Section 45A of the ESI Act, against which the petitioner ought to have preferred an appeal before the Appellate Authority under Section 45-AA of the ESI Act. He further submits that the petitioner had earlier challenged the said order by filing Writ Petition L No. 196 of 2024, wherein this Court, vide order dated 06.09.2024, directed the petitioner to approach the Appellate Authority within a period of two weeks in accordance with law. Even otherwise, the order passed by the Labour 4 Court does not warrant any interference by this Court. 4. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the records. 5. Perusal of the impugned order indicates that the learned Labour Court, Raipur has categorically observed that the respondent issued the order for recovery of employees’ contribution in respect of the employees working at the workplace situated at Kharsia, District Raigarh. The application seeking to quash the said demand was filed before the Labour Court, Raipur. It has further been observed that during the disputed period, the workplace of the concerned employees was at Kharsia, District Raigarh, and that the Labour Court is also established at Raigarh. Taking these facts into consideration, the application filed by the petitioner was returned by the Labour Court. 6. Apart from this, perusal of the record further indicates that, challenging the order passed by the respondent, the petitioner had earlier filed a writ petition bearing WPL No. 196 of 2024, which came to be disposed of by this Court vide order dated 06.09.2024, while reserving liberty in favour of the petitioner to avail the statutory remedy. Admittedly, against an order of assessment or determination of contribution passed by the respondent under Section 45A of the ESI Act, an appeal lies before the Appellate Authority under Section 45-AA of the said Act. Taking into consideration the facts and circumstances of the case, this Court does not find any illegality or irregularity warranting interference in the impugned order. 7. Accordingly, this writ petition is dismissed. Sd/- (Sachin Singh Rajput) JUDGE Pawan