2026:JHHC:18192 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI W.P. (C) No. 2808 of 2005 The Tata Pigments Ltd, having its registered Office works at Sakchi Boulevard, P.O. & P.S.-Bistupur, Jamshedpur- 831 002 District Singhbhum East through Shri V. Natarajan, Controller of Accounts & Company Secretary … … Petitioner -versus- 1. The State of Jharkhand, Ranchi through the Secretary, Department of Labour Employment and Training, Nepal House, P.O. & P.S.-Doranda, Ranchi. 2. The Regional Director, Employees State Insurance Corporation, P.O. & P.S.-Namkum, Ranchi-834 010 3. Regional Manager ESI, P.O. & P.S.-Namkum, Ranchi-834 010. 4. The Employees State Insurance, Inspector, ESI Corporation, P.O. & P.S.-Golmuri, Jamshedpur, Singhbhum (East). … … Respondents --- CORAM: HON’BLE MRS. JUSTICE ANUBHA RAWAT CHOUDHARY --- For the Petitioner : Mr. Pandey Neeraj Rai, Advocate Mr. Rohit Ranjan Sinha, Advocate Mr. Arpit Khandelwal, Advocate Mr. Kumar Rahul, Advocate For the Resp.-ESIC : Mr. Ashutosh Anand, Advocate [Through Video Conferencing] Mr. Vincent Marki, Advocate For the Resp.-State : Mr. J. F. Toppo, Advocate Mr. N. A. Toppo, Advocate --- C.A.V. On 19.02.2026 Pronounced On: 22.06.2026 1. This writ petition has been filed for the following reliefs: - “i) For issuance of appropriate writ or writ of or in the nature of certiorari commanding and directing upon the Respondents to certify and show-cause as to why the order contained in the letter no.60/1071 dated 9/4/2005 issued by the Deputy Director (Insurance) address to the Petitioner, whereby and whereunder the Petitioner has been directed to deposit a sum of Rs.41,30,911/- only as the amount of contribution towards ESI purported to have been assessed in exercise of the powers under 2026:JHHC:18192 2 Section 45A of the Employees State Insurance Act for coverage under the said Act, BE NOT SET ASIDE AND QUASHED by this Hon'ble Court as the same is illegal, arbitrary and having been passed mechanically during the pendency of the representations of the Petitioner seeking exemption from the provisions of the Act before the Secretary Labour & Employment and Training, Respondent no.1 herein. ii) For issuance of appropriate writ or writ in the nature of writ of mandamus commanding and directing upon the Respondents to finally exempt and exclude the Petitioner from the purview of the provisions of the Employee State Insurance Act. iii) For issuance of appropriate writ or writs in the nature of writ of prohibition prohibiting and restraining the Respondents the ESI authorities from acting pursuant to or in furtherance of the order/ letter dated 9/4/2005, the impugned order/letter herein. iv) For issuance of any other appropriate order/orders, direction or directions and as your Lordship may deem fit and proper for doing conscionable justice to the Petitioner.” Arguments of the petitioner 2. The grievance of the petitioner is that the letter dated 09.04.2005 (Annexure-6) issued by the Deputy Director (Insurance) asking the petitioner to deposit Rs. 41,30,911/- as their contribution towards ESI under the Employees’ State Insurance Act, 1948 (hereinafter referred to as the Act of 1948) for coverage under the said Act is illegal and arbitrary as they have been passed mechanically during the pendency of the representations of the petitioner seeking exemption from the provisions of the aforesaid Act filed before Respondent No. 1. They are also seeking a direction that the petitioner be finally exempted and excluded from the purview of the provisions of the aforesaid Act of 1948. 3. It is the specific case of the petitioner that TISCO Ltd. has been extending the facilities required under the provisions of the aforesaid Act of 1948 to the workers of the petitioner-company in the same line as being extended to the employees of TISCO Ltd. 2026:JHHC:18192 3 4. It is submitted that TISCO Ltd. was granted exemption from the applicability of the Act of 1948 in the year 1996-97 and therefore under bonafide belief, the petitioner did not file any separate formal application seeking exemption under Section 87/88 of the aforesaid Act of 1948 and filed application seeking exemption only in January 2000 to the then State of Bihar and thereafter, year to year, before the State of Jharkhand since 2001. The petitioner’s applications seeking exemption from the year 2000 to 2004 were pending consideration with the State of Jharkhand (except for the year 2000, which remained pending with the State of Bihar). 5. The learned counsel for the petitioner has referred to the letter dated 26.04.2004 (Annexure-1) addressed to the respondent no.1 to intimate about the facilities which are being provided to the petitioner-company by way of arrangement with Tata Main Hospital belonging to TISCO Ltd. at Jamshedpur and the recognized workers’ Union of the petitioner-company has also issued no objection vide letter dated 19.01.2002 (Annexure-2). 6. It is their further case that a letter dated 25.01.2005 (Annexure-4) was issued to the petitioner-company during the pendency of applications seeking exemption for different years commencing right from 2000 till 2004 asking the petitioner to produce the records and stating that the petitioner is covered under the Act of 1948 with effect from 01.10.1996, but no compliance was made from the side of the petitioner and accordingly the petitioner was asked to produce the books of accounts. It was also mentioned that due contribution of the petitioner has been assessed by the authority to the extent of Rs. 41,30,911/- which be paid in order to avoid payment of interest. A direction was also issued to produce the records along with books of accounts, which was pending since 1996- 97 till that date. It has also been mentioned in the letter dated 25.01.2005 (Annexure-4) that the Insurance Inspector of ESI Corporation, Golmuri had carried out verification of records of the petitioner-company. It is the grievance of the petitioner that no details/break up was given for huge demand. 2026:JHHC:18192 4 7. In response to the letter dated 25.01.2005, the petitioner filed a representation dated 15.02.2005 wherein a reference was made to the inspection report dated 25.01.2005 and a request was made by the petitioner that the sum of Rs. 41,30,911/- assessed for the period from October 1996 to March 2004 as their contribution towards ESI dues be kept in abeyance, since the petitioner had applied for exemption under the provision of the aforesaid Act of 1948. 8. Thereafter, the petitioner received the impugned letter dated 09.04.2005 (Annexure-6), from the office of Deputy Director (Insurance), ESI demanding the payment of the aforesaid amount for the period from October 1996 to March 2004 and further it envisaged levy of interest @ 15% if amount is not paid within 15 days and also seeking to recover the amount under Section 45-B and 45-C to 45-I of the aforesaid Act of 1948. 9. It is the case of the petitioner that aforesaid demand is wholly arbitrary as assessment of contribution as envisaged under Section 45 and 45-A of the Act of 1948 has not been made by giving year-wise break-up and quantifying the amount separately for the period from October 1996 to 1999 and then for the period 2000 till 2004. It was also asserted that the respondent no. 1 had, from time to time, intimated the Deputy Director, ESI, Ranchi about the dates fixed for hearing on the application of the petitioner seeking exemption. It has been submitted that the application seeking exemption were still pending for consideration by the State and those communications have been annexed as Annexure-7, 8 and 9 of the writ petition to show that the dates for hearing on the point of exemption was fixed by respondent No. 1 from time to time. 10. It is the specific case of the petitioner that no demand could have been raised by the respondent-ESIC during the pendency of the applications seeking exemption under the Act of 1948. They have relied upon two orders passed by this Court both dated 05.07.2001 in W.P. (C) No. 2853 of 2001 and W.P. (C) No. 2857 of 2001 (M/s. TISCO Ltd. vs. 2026:JHHC:18192 5 State of Bihar & Others) and order dated 04.03.2004 in W.P. (C) No. 2853 of 2001 and W.P. (C) No. 2857 of 2001 (TISCO vs. State of Bihar) wherein stay order was passed. The order dated 05.07.2001 in the aforesaid two cases have been annexed as Annexure-11 and 11/1 respectively to the writ petition. Vide order dated 05.07.2001 passed in W.P. (C) No. 2857 of 2001 interim relief was granted to TISCO Limited and the case was disposed of on 10.07.2006 by directing the petitioner to file a fresh application for grant of exemption under Section 87 of the Employees' State Insurance Act for the period 1996 to 1998 also before the State of Jharkhand within a period of two weeks and the State of Jharkhand has been directed to consider the claim of the petitioner in its right perspective and shall dispose of the same by a reasoned and speaking order after giving a chance of hearing to the petitioner within a period of three months from the date of filing of such application. The operative portion of the order dated 10.07.2006 passed in W.P. (C) No. 2857 of 2001 is quoted as under: - “As submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the matter with regard to renewal of exemption under Section 87 of the Employees' State Insurance Act after the period 15th November, 2000 is pending consideration before the State of Jharkhand and therefore, the petitioner is directed to file a fresh application for grant of exemption under Section 87 of the Employees' State Insurance Act for the period 1996 to 1998 also before the State of Jharkhand within a period of two weeks from today. If such an application for grant of exemption is filed by the petitioner within the said period, the State of Jharkhand is directed to consider the claim of the petitioner in its right perspective and shall dispose of the same by a reasoned and speaking order after giving a chance of hearing to the petitioner within a period of three months from the date of filing of such application.” 11. It has been submitted that similar order has been passed in W.P. (C) No. 4931 of 2006 dated 15.09.2006 wherein Deputy Director, ESIC vide 2026:JHHC:18192 6 demand notices had taken steps for recovery of contribution from Tata Steel Limited (TISCO Ltd.) for the period from December 2002 to August 2005 and September 2005 to June 2006. The order passed by this Court in W.P. (C) No. 4931 of 2006 is quoted as under: – “In this writ application, the petitioner has prayed for quashing the two demand notices, both dated 19.07.2006, issued by the Deputy Director, Employees State Insurance Corporation for recovery of its contribution for the period from December 2002 to August 2005 and further for the period September 2005 to June 2006, being amount of Rs. 10,36,590.00 and Rs.3,73,462.00 respectively. It has been stated that the petitioner has already applied for exemption under the provisions of Section 87 and 88 of the Employees State Insurance Act before the Secretary, Department of Labour, Government of Jharkhand, who is the competent authority. It has been further stated that for the earlier period the petitioner was given exemption from 1982 to 1996 and on the same ground, further exemption has been prayed. The respondents have not disputed the said fact. It has been stated that this Court, in similar circumstance and in the matter of the same petitioner, has passed an order dated 10th July, 2006 in W.P.(C) No. 2857 of 2001, holding the demand of the Employees State Insurance Corporation as absolutely unjustified and, in that case, the impugned demand notice was quashed. Learned counsel for both the parties are in agreement that this case is fully covered by the said order of this Court. In view of the above, both the demand notices dated 19.07.2006, as contained in Annexure 8 and 8/1 are quashed. Since the application for exemption under Sections 87 and 88 of the Employees State Insurance Act is pending before the competent authority, he shall consider the same and take a fresh decision by a reasoned order, in accordance with law after giving opportunity of hearing to the petitioner. This writ application is disposed of.” 12. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the orders passed by the authority annexed the counter affidavit and also annexed to 2026:JHHC:18192 7 the supplementary affidavit rejecting the application for exemption is a nullity in the eyes of law and for that purpose he has relied upon the judgment passed by Hon’ble Supreme Court reported in (2013) 5 SCC 427 [Rajasthan State Industrial Development and Investment Corporation vs. Subhash Sindhi Cooperative Housing Society, Jaiput and Others] and submits that once the order is a nullity the same need not be set aside. The ground on which the petitioner is alleging nullity as per submissions is that the hearing was done by Secretary and the order has been issued by the Deputy Secretary. Learned counsel has also submitted that there is clear likelihood of bias as a demand has been raised prior to passing of the impugned order. 13. Learned counsel for the petitioner has referred to the judgment passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court reported in (1988) 2 SCC 602 [A. R. Antulay vs. R.S. Nayak and Another] and has referred paragraph 55 to submit that an order passed, which is violative of principles of natural justice, is a nullity. He has then referred to the judgment passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court reported in (1990) 4 SCC 594 [S. N. Mukherjee vs. Union of India] and has referred paragraph 39 to submit that it has been held that non-speaking order is an order violative of principles of natural justice. He has then submitted that these two judgments are constitution bench judgments and therefore, the two orders though not specifically challenged in this writ petition which have been annexed in this record by way of counter affidavit and by way of supplementary affidavit filed recently are nullity being violative of principles of natural justice. 14. He has further submitted that though no application seeking exemption was filed for the period of 1996 to 2000, but the demand raised on account of this period is suffers from delay and latches and therefore, the same cannot be sustained in the eyes of law. He has submitted that though at that point of time, there was no period of limitation prescribed, but the limitation for realizing the dues under the Act has been introduced 2026:JHHC:18192 8 for the first time in the year 2010 by second proviso to Section 45(A) introduced in the year 2010. Arguments of the respondents. 15. A counter-affidavit has been filed on behalf of respondent nos. 2, 3 and 4 by referring to Section 75 of the aforesaid Act of 1948 to submit that the dispute between the principal employer and corporation with regard to recovery of contribution can only be decided by ESI Court and not by the High Court. An order contained in memo no. 1067 dated 23.07.2005 (Annexure-A to the counter-affidavit) has also been brought on record stating that the State Government had already rejected the application of the petitioner seeking exemption from the Act of 1948 for the period from 01.01.2002 to 31.12.2002 which has not been challenged in this case. 16. The respondents have also brought on record a copy of the inspection report dated 25.01.2005/ 31.01.2005 giving the calculation and break-up of total demand of Rs. 41,30,911/- with interest right from the period 10/1996 till 03/2004 and it has also been asserted that a copy of the inspection report was also given to the petitioner-management on the spot for compliance. It has also been stated in the counter affidavit that Form C-18 vide letter dated 31.03.2005 was also raised on actual basis under Section 45-A of the aforesaid Act of 1948 for the period from 10/1996 to 03/2004. The said respondent further asserted that Form C-18 dated 31.03.2005 was raised on the basis of the inspection report of the petitioner on 20.12.2004, 24.01.2005, 25.01.2005 and 31.01.2005 after checking the records excluding the books of accounts for the period from 10/1996 to 03/2004 and it was found that the total contribution due was Rs. 41,30,911/- and therefore Form C-18 issued to the petitioner was on actual basis and did not require year-wise break-up. It was asserted that the action of the ESI Corporation under Section 45-A was in accordance with the provisions of the ESI Act and in terms of the principle of natural justice. It was also asserted that the order under Section 45-A of the ESI 2026:JHHC:18192 9 Act was in accordance with law. It was also asserted that the order under Section 45-A of ESI Act was contained in Form C-18 dated 31.03.2005, which was issued on the basis of the inspection report. However, Form C-18, which has been referred to in the counter-affidavit, has not been annexed along with the counter-affidavit. At the same time, it has been mentioned in paragraph 6 of the counter affidavit that letter no. 60/1071 dated 31.03.2005 (which is the impugned letter in this case) is form C-18 for the period 10/96 to 3/04. It has been asserted that the impugned letter has been issued on the basis of the inspection report and the inspection report contains the breakup of each year and a copy of the inspection report was furnished to the petitioner. The inspection report along with the calculation of demand has been placed on record. In the inspection report itself a note has been mentioned as under: - “In response of R.O. letter No. 60-P/13/16/2003-Ins-I Dt.- 3/20.09.2004 which was received by me only on 27.10.04. The next date was fixed for 25.11.2004. No record was produced on 25.11.2004. Entire Copies of salary sheet from Oct 96 to 3/04 was only produced on 20.12.04. The above salary sheet was also having entries for O.T. payment which was not included for contribution calculation. Hence, I had to calculate the same including O.T. and conducted inspection on 20.12.04, 24.1.05 & 25.1.04. For books of A/c they had further requested for time vide Annex-IV. Since the due contribution is more than 40,00,000/- (forty lacs), I conducted inspection even without books for initiation of demand.” For this they had also submitted an application for exemption. Copy enclosed at Annexure-V. For r/a at your end please. 25.01.2005/31.01.2005” 17. It was recorded in the aforesaid note in the inspection report that the period of salary for Overtime (OT) payment which was not included for contribution calculation and for production of books of accounts, the petitioner had requested for further time. The authority recorded that since 2026:JHHC:18192 10 the due contribution was more than Rs. 40,00,000/-, the inspection was conducted without books to initiate demand. It was also recorded that the petitioner had also submitted an application for exemption and consequently in the inspection report itself, it was mentioned that the demand as per its enclosure was raised. The said document also contains the calculation which amounted to Rs. 41,30,911/- and this was followed by issuance of letter dated 25.01.2005 (observation sheet) asking the petitioner to deposit the amount and also produced records for the period from 10/04 to 12/04. 18. Learned counsel for the respondents has submitted that the present writ petition itself is not maintainable in view of alternative remedy provided under Section 75(1)(g) of the Employees’ State Insurance Act, 1948. He has also submitted that the impugned demand was raised after due inspection and the inspection report has been placed on record. 19. The learned counsel submits that the only ground of the petitioner even taken before the authority is that their application seeking exemption was pending and the application seeking exemption has been rejected. Under such circumstances, the petitioner cannot escape its liability to pay the amount. 20. The learned counsel has referred to Sections 39, 40, 45-A, 45-B and 45-C also to explain the procedure which are required to be adopted as per the Act. The learned counsel has also submitted that as per provision of Section 91-A of the aforesaid Act of 1948, as it stood at the relevant point of time in the year 1989, the notification granting exemption under Sections 87, 88, 90 or 91 could be issued so as to take effect either prospectively or retrospectively on such date as may be specified therein. He submits that once the application seeking exemption has been rejected, the liability cannot be denied. Rejoinder of the petitioner. 21. The petitioner filed a rejoinder to the counter-affidavit filed by respondent nos. 2 to 4 by stating that the petitioner’s application for 2026:JHHC:18192 11 exemption for the period 2000 to 2006 were still pending consideration and that last hearing had taken place before the Joint Secretary, Department of Labour, Employment & Training on 05.07.2006 for consideration of the case of the petitioner for exemption. It has been asserted that previous application for the year 2002 was rejected vide communication dated 06.12.2006 and the petitioner requested the Joint Secretary, Department of Labour Employment & Training, Government of Jharkhand to reconsider the petitioner’s application for exemption under the purview of the Act for the year 2002 on the ground that the Tata Steel Limited was already granted exemption vide notification dated 14.09.2006 for the period from 15.11.2000 to 07.08.2005 and the High Court had already quashed the demand in similar case on account of pendency of exemption applications with the State Government and that the applications seeking exemption for the year 2000 and 2001 were still pending for consideration by the State Government. 22. The petitioner brought on record the order passed by this Court in W.P. (C) No. 4931/2006 vide order dated 15.09.2006 and asserted that a direction be passed to the Secretary, Department of Labour, Employment & Training to take into consideration the developments in line of the notification dated 14.09.2006 by which exemption was granted to Tata Steel Limited. The order dated 10.07.2006 passed in W.P. (C) No. 2857/2001 was also annexed to the rejoinder. 23. With respect to the inspection report as annexed with the counter- affidavit, the petitioner stated that the same was vague and devoid of specific details year-wise and was not in accordance with the provision of ESI Act. The statement in the counter-affidavit filed by ESI in paragraph- 5 that a copy of the inspection report was also provided to the petitioner, has not been specifically denied by the petitioner in the rejoinder. Counter affidavit of Respondent no.1 24. So far as the respondent no. 1 is concerned, it was categorically stated in paragraph 5 of the counter-affidavit dated 10.01.2006 that the 2026:JHHC:18192 12 application seeking exemption under Section 88 of the aforesaid Act of 1948 was not submitted to the respondent no. 1 for the period before 31.12.2001 and the application dated 25.01.2002 covered the period from 01.01.2002 to 31.12.2002 which was rejected vide order dated 23.07.2005 on adequate grounds. It was also stated that for the period seeking exemption from 01.01.2003 to 31.12.2005 appropriate order would be passed. 25. With respect to the counter-affidavit filed by the respondent no. 1 dated 10.01.2006, no rejoinder has been filed by the petitioner. Supplementary affidavits filed by the petitioner. 26. The petitioner has filed numerous supplementary affidavits. 27. A supplementary affidavit has also been filed bringing on record a letter dated 14.06.2007 mentioning that the application seeking exemption for the period 2003 to 2005 has been rejected by the State Government and the said letter dated 14.06.2007 was filed for review of the case of the petitioner for exemption for the year 2003 to 2005. In the 2nd supplementary affidavit dated 03.08.2011, a letter dated 13.10.2006 issued by the petitioner to the State Government has also been brought on record whereby the petitioner has requested the State Government to reconsider the decision rejecting the application for the period 2002 and 2003. The status of applications seeking exemptions for various periods were mentioned. 28. In supplementary affidavit dated 25.10.2024, which is the 4th supplementary affidavit, it has been interalia stated in paragraph 13 to 16 that- for the period October 1996 to December 1999 there was no specific application for exemption submitted by petitioner primarily the non-submission of such application was based on a reasonable understanding of the petitioner, as the petitioner's plant is situated and adjacent to Tata Steel Works and since Tata Steel Works was exempted 2026:JHHC:18192 13 from ESI compliance, there was no requirement for additionally obtaining exemption for petitioner. For the period January 2000 to March 2004 the applications seeking exemption from ESI coverage were filed. The State Government has rejected the application on two different dates i.e. 23.07.2005 (for the period 2002) and 04.05.2007 (for the period 2003-2005). 29. It has been stated in paragraph 16 in a tabular form as under:- 16. That in order to have a clear picture of the different exemption applications filed by the petitioner and the status of the same is given below in the tabular statement which reads as under: Sl. Nos. Dates Event Remarks 01. 03.02.2000 Exemption application filed for the period 2000 Pending 02. 30.01.2001 Exemption application filed for the period 2001 Pending 03. 25.01.2002 Exemption application filed for the period 2002 Rejected on 23.07.2005 04. 27.01.2003 Exemption application filed for the period 2003 Rejected on 04.05.2007 05. 30.01.2004 Exemption application filed for the period 2004 Rejected on 04.05.2007 06. 31.01.2005 Exemption application filed for the period 2005 Rejected on 04.05.2007 07. 09.04.2005 Demand was raised by ESI amounting to Rs. 41,30,911/- for the period ranging from October 1996 to March, 2004. At this point of time, the exemption applications for the period 2000 to 2026:JHHC:18192 14 2005, were still pending. 08. 19.05.2005 The petitioner filed the instant writ petition bearing WPC No. 2808 of 2005 against the demand raised by the ESI dated 09.04.2005 09. 11.07.2005 Another Demand Letter was issued by the ESI adding an interest of Rs. 32,37,272/- on the earlier demand, totaling to Rs. 73,68,183/- The interest was added for the period where the exemption application was still pending for the adjudication. 10. 23.07.2005 The State Government rejected the exemption application for the period 2002. After a lapse of 31 months of the filing of exemption application and that too more than 2 months after the raising of the demand. 11. 04.05.2007 The State Government rejected the exemption application for the period 2003, 2004 and 2005. After a lapse of almost 3 years of filing of exemption application and that too more than 2 years after the raising of the demand. 2026:JHHC:18192 15 30. Further, 5th Supplementary affidavit has been filed in this case on 17.02.2026 annexing therewith order of rejection of exemption for the period from 01.01.2003 to 31.12.2003; 01.01.2004 to 31.12.2004 and 01.01.2005 to 31.12.2005 as contained in memo No. 572 dated 14.05.2007 annexing therewith the copies of the applications seeking exemption for the period from 03.02.2000 onwards till 2005. However, one of the said applications seeking exemption dated 03.02.2000 is said to have been filed before the Commissioner & Secretary, Department of Labour, Employment and Training, Government of Bihar, Patna, who is not a party to the present proceedings and accordingly the counter-affidavit filed by the respondent no. 1 rightly reveals that the application for exemption prior to February 2001 was not filed. The application dated 03.02.2000 as enclosed with the 5th supplementary affidavit also does not reveal any receiving from the office of Commissioner & Secretary, Department of Labour, Employment and Training, Government of Bihar, Patna. However right from beginning the case of the petitioner has been that the application seeking exemption for the year 2000 in the office of Commissioner & Secretary, Department of Labour, Employment and Training, Government of Bihar, Patna. Findings of this court. 31. This Court finds that the inspecting officer during inspection on 25.01.2005 issued the following observation sheet: - “REGIONAL OFFICE, JHARKHAND EMPLOYEES' STATE INSURANCE CORPORATION Golmuri Jamshedpur. Date 25.1.05 Letter No. 60-1071 Observation Sheet 50/- 25.1.05 During the course of verification of record irregularities/observation have been observed as under:- 1. Your factory has been commenced w.e.f. 1.10.06 but you have not at all started compliance under the compliance of the E.S.I. Act and Regulation made thereunder. During 10/96 to 3/04, as per your record as produced without Books of A/C, the total due contribution has been assessed to the tune of Rs. 2026:JHHC:18192 16 41,30,911=00 which may please be paid to avoid interest and damage payment. 2. Please also produce Wage record for 10/04 to 12/04 which is pending since 96-97 to date. 3. Please also ensure timely compliance in r/o your all the contractors and keep a proper watch at their compliance being the Principal Employer. To C.B. PRASAD M/s Tata Pigments Ltd. INSURANCE INSPECTOR Sakchi Boulebard Road, E.S.I. CORPORATION Jamshedpur GOLMURI, JSR.” 32. The inspection report is dated 25.01.2005/ 31.01.2005 and in the inspection report itself the liability was quantified for the period from 10/1996 till 03/2004 on the basis of available records and the calculation chart was also enclosed to the inspection report and a copy of the inspection report was furnished to the petitioner. 33. The records further reveals that by referring to the aforesaid observation sheet dated 25.01.2005 and alleging that the dues computed amounting to Rs. 41,30,911=00 has not been deposited by the petitioner, the impugned letter dated 31.03.2005 (annexure-6) was served upon the petitioner on 09.04.2005 asking the petitioner to deposit the said amount and also file returns. 34. The impugned letter dated 31.03.2005 (annexure-6) reveals that the same was issued on the basis of the observations made by the Insurance Inspector on 25.01.2005 mentioning that the petitioner is liable to pay contributions in terms of Section 39 of the aforesaid Act of 1948 and the petitioner is liable to pay the contribution in terms of Regulation 29, 31 and 33. The petitioner was directed to furnish his return of contributions under Regulation 26 in prescribed Form-6, which was the form prescribed at the relevant point of time. It was further mentioned in the letter that in spite of observation made by the Insurance Inspector dated 25.01.2005, the calculation having been furnished, the amount has not been deposited amounting to Rs. 41,30,911/- relating to the period 10/96 to 03/04. It was also mentioned therein that in case, the amount is not deposited, the 2026:JHHC:18192 17 petitioner would be liable to pay interest as per the Act and the Regulation framed thereunder and the petitioner was directed to deposit the amount within 15 days. 35. The impugned letter dated 31.03.2005 (annexure-6) when read in entirety does not refer to any order of assessment passed under Section 45A of the Act of 1948. 36. The counter-affidavit reveals that an order of assessment under Section 45A of the Act of 1948 has been passed and has also been served upon the petitioner as contained in C-18 dated 31.03.2005. The order of assessment under section 45A has not been brought on record by the respondent no. 2 to 4. The petitioner has also not specifically denied about the passing of the order of assessment in the rejoinder to the counter affidavit but in the writ petition the petitioner has raised a point that order of assessment under section 45A has not been passed. Under aforesaid circumstances, it is not clear as to whether the order of assessment under Section 45A has been passed or not and what is the nature of the order of assessment and whether the same has been passed as per the procedure prescribed under section 45A. 37. In the aforesaid circumstances and in the absence of the order of assessment passed under section 45A having been brought on record, it cannot be said that the petitioner has alternative remedy of appeal. Further, this writ petition was filed in the year 2005 and pleadings have also been exchanged. 38. The order of assessment which is said to be dated 31.03.2005 and served upon the petitioner as stated in the counter affidavit has not been specifically denied by the petitioner in the rejoinder and has not been brought on record by either party. The impugned letter dated 31.03.2005 (annexure-6) does not appear to be a demand arising out of the order of assessment. The inspection sheet dated 25.01.2005 reveals that the inspecting officer was still asking the petitioner to produce the records and the inspection report reveals that the inspection was carried on till 2026:JHHC:18192 18 31.01.2005. However, this could be clear only if the so-called assessment order dated 31.03.2005, as mentioned in the counter affidavit, was brought on record by either party. The date of the impugned letter and the order of assessment made under section 45A as asserted by the respondents in their counter affidavit is the same, that is, 31.03.2005. 39. The fact remains that the petitioner responded to the impugned letter dated 31.03.2005 (annexure-6) by stating that the demand as assessed be kept in abeyance as the petition seeking exemptions from the Act of 1948 were pending and no dispute was raised with respect to quantification of the amount of dues. 40. However, before any further action could be taken by the respondents pursuant to the impugned letter dated 31.03.2005 (annexure- 6), which itself was based on the observation sheet dated 25.01.2005 issued by the inspecting officer , interalia, asking the petitioner to produce books of account for the period involved, an interim order was passed by this Court with respect to the impugned letter dated 31.03.2005 (annexure- 6) by virtue of order dated 14.06.2005 in the following manner: - “Till further order, no coercive steps shall be taken against the petitioner.” 41. The grievance of the petitioner in the writ petition is that the respondents could not have raised any demand by asking the petitioner to deposit any amount vide the impugned letter dated 31.03.2005 (annexure- 6) during the pendency of representations of the petitioner seeking exemption from the provisions of the Act of 1948, which were pending before the respondent no. 1 and/or before the corresponding authority of the then State of Bihar. 42. In the writ petition, it has been specifically stated that the aforesaid Act of 1948 was made applicable to the petitioner with effect from October 1996 and the workers of the petitioner were availing the facilities as was available to the workers of Tata Steel Limited (TISCO Limited) and since Tata Steel Limited was exempted establishment in the year 2026:JHHC:18192 19 1996-97, the petitioner was under bonafide belief that they are also covered by the exemption granted to TISCO Limited and did not file any separate exemption application before the authority for the period from October 1996 till the year 1999 but they filed the application seeking exemption for the year 2000 to the Government of Bihar and thereafter for the year 2001 to 2004 to the State of Jharkhand. It was their specific case that the petitioner’s applications made from time to time for the years 2000 to 2004 were still pending consideration before the State of Jharkhand, except for the year 2000, for which exemption could be granted by the State of Bihar. Period from 10/96 till 12/99 43. This Court is of the considered view that admittedly no application was pending seeking exemption for the period from 10/96 till 12/99. The ground raised by the petitioner, that the impugned letter dated 09.04.2005 could not have been issued for the period from 10/96 to 12/99 on the ground of pendency of exemption application, is completely misplaced as admittedly no application for exemption was filed for the period from 10/96 to 12/99. 44. This Court is also of the considered view that grant of exemption to TISCO Ltd cannot be automatically extended to the petitioner company as the terms of conditions of employment and also the nature of arrangement with TISCO Limited and also availability of facility of treatment in other hospitals etc. are also important factors in the matter of grant of exemption. 45. Under the aforesaid circumstances, the petitioner cannot escape the liability for the period from 10/96 to 12/99. 46. However, as discussed above, it is not clear as to whether an order of assessment under Section 45A of the Act of 1948 for the period from 10/96 to 12/99 has been passed or not. 47. Accordingly, the petitioner is directed to appear before the respondent no.2 on 20th of July 2026 at 11.00 a.m. If an order of 2026:JHHC:18192 20 assessment is found in the records of the said authority, no fresh order of assessment is required to be passed and it will be open to the authority to proceed as per law. 48. However, if no order of assessment has been passed, it will be open to the said authority to proceed as per law and pass an order of assessment after granting an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner. The impugned letter read with the observation sheet as referred to in the impugned letter reveals that the authority was asking the petitioner to produce books of account and the petitioner enjoyed the interim order of no coercive steps during the pendency of the writ petition. In such circumstances, it cannot be said that the action of the respondents suffered from any delay or latches and admittedly for the said period no limitation was prescribed for passing the order of assessment which was introduced through amendment in the year 2010. 49. The order of assessment, if not already passed earlier, be passed within a period of 3 months from 20th of July 2026 and a copy of the same be communicated to the petitioner. The dates of hearing be communicated to the petitioner from time to time through e-mail at the id to be provided by the petitioner in the representation to be filed by the petitioner before the respondent no.2 along with this order and a copy of the writ records. In order to avoid any gap, the said authority may call upon the petitioner to file written submission also. Period January 2000 50. As per the case of the petitioner, exemption applications were filed for the period 2000 before the then State of Bihar, and the petitioner has also filed a copy of such application through supplementary affidavit. There can be no doubt that the State of Bihar would not pass an order of exemption with respect to the petitioner establishment as after filing of the exemption application the State of Jharkhand has been created. In such circumstances, the petitioner is entitled to similar relief as has been 2026:JHHC:18192 21 granted to Tata Steel Limited in the order dated 10.07.2006 passed in W.P. (C) No. 2857 of 2001 as quoted above. 51. Accordingly, the petitioner is directed to file a fresh application for grant of exemption under Section 87 of the Employees' State Insurance Act for the period 2000 before the State of Jharkhand (respondent no.1 or his successor). If such an application for grant of exemption is filed by the petitioner within the said period, the State of Jharkhand is directed to consider the claim of the petitioner in its right perspective and shall dispose of the same by a reasoned and speaking order after giving a chance of hearing to the petitioner and also to the respondent no.2 or his authorized representative within a period of three months from the date of filing of such application. 52. Accordingly, the petitioner and the respondent no.2 or his authorized representative are directed to appear before State of Jharkhand (respondent no.1 or his successor) on 13th of July 2026 at 11.00 a.m. 53. The dates of hearing be communicated to the petitioner and the respondent no.2 or his authorized representative from time to time through e-mail at the id to be provided by the petitioner in the representation to be filed by the petitioner before the State of Jharkhand (respondent no.1 or his successor) along with this order and the writ records and the e-mail id to be provided by the respondent no.2 or his authorized representative. In order to avoid any gap, the said authority may call upon the petitioner to file written submissions. The final order to be passed be communicated to the concerned parties. It is further directed that the liability of the petitioner for this period shall depend upon the result of the exemption application of the petitioner for this period. Period 2001 54. The applications seeking exemption for the period 2001 is pending consideration before the respondent no.1. Accordingly, the petitioner and the respondent no.2 or his authorized representative are directed to appear 2026:JHHC:18192 22 before the respondent no.1 or his successor on 13th of July 2026 at 11.00 a.m. 55. The State of Jharkhand (respondent no.1 or his successor) is directed to consider the claim of the petitioner in its right perspective and shall dispose of the same by a reasoned and speaking order after giving a chance of hearing to the petitioner and also to the respondent no.2 or his authorized representative within a period of three months from the date of filing of such application. 56. The dates of hearing be communicated to the petitioner and the respondent no.2 or his authorized representative from time to time through e-mail at the id to be provided by the petitioner in the representation to be filed by the petitioner before the State of Jharkhand (respondent no.1 or his successor) along with this order and the writ records and the e-mail id to be provided by the respondent no.2 or his authorized representative. In order to avoid any gap, the said authority may call upon the petitioner to file written submission. The final order to be passed be communicated to the concerned parties. 57. It is further directed that the liability of the petitioner for this period shall depend upon the result of the exemption application of the petitioner for this period. Period 2002 to 2004 58. The fact remains that the impugned letter for this period was raised during the pendency of the applications seeking exemption and the applications seeking exemption have been rejected by the order of Deputy Secretary vide order dated 23.07.2005 for the period 2002 and vide common order dated 14.05.2007 for the period 2003 to 2005. The orders refusing to grant exemption are not under challenge in this writ petition and has attained finality so far. 2026:JHHC:18192 23 59. This court is of the considered view that mere pendency of application seeking exemption cannot be a ground not to pay the ESI dues which are assessed as per law. 60. It has been argued by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the orders of rejection has been passed in gross violation of the principles of natural justice and for that reference has been made to the aforesaid judgements passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court to submit that orders passed in violation of natural justice and orders which are non-speaking are nullity in the eyes of law. It has been submitted by referring to the 4th supplementary affidavit dated 25.10.2024 that the application seeking exemption for the period 2003 to 2005 were heard by the Principal Secretary and the order of rejection has been passed by the Under Secretary and that it is well-settled that the order passed by the officer, who has not heard the matter, has no jurisdiction to pass the order. However, the order dated 14.05.2007, rejecting the application seeking exemption, reveals that on various dates the matter was jointly heard by the Principal Secretary and the Deputy Secretary and the order rejecting the application seeking exemption has been passed under the signature of Deputy Secretary. Further, this Court finds that the various order granting exemption to Tata Steel Limited, which have been placed on record, have been passed by the Deputy Secretary and the petitioner is relying on such orders and as such jurisdiction of the Deputy Secretary to pass an order granting or rejecting applications seeking exemption cannot be said to without jurisdiction. The order of rejection refers to the various service rules in the petitioner company and a finding has been recorded that the facilities provided by the ESIC is better than what is available under the service rules. The order of rejection is a speaking order. Under such circumstances, it cannot be said that the order has been passed by an authority who had not heard the matter and hence the order of rejection is a nullity. 2026:JHHC:18192 24 61. The aforesaid observations have been made as the petitioner has submitted that the order of rejection of exemption is a nullity and there was no need to challenge such order. 62. This court is of the considered view that the order of rejection of exemption cannot be said to be ex-facie violation of principles of natural justice or without jurisdiction or non-speaking and in order to avoid the order of rejection, the petitioner ought to have specifically challenged the same so that the respondents also were given opportunity to respond to such challenge and the dispute could be adjudicated. As long as the orders of rejection are on record, there can be no case of the petitioner to claim exemption and not pay the dues under the aforesaid Act of 1948. 63. This Court is also of the considered view that merely because Tata Steel Limited has been granted exemption with respect to one or the other period, the same does not automatically extend to the petitioner. The terms and conditions of employment and also the arrangement with Tata Steel Limited with respect to permitted use of the facilities of Tata Steel Limited for the employees of the petitioner are certainly important considerations to seek exemption. 64. However, as discussed above, it is not clear as to whether an order of assessment under section 45A of the Act of 1948 for the period from 2002 to 2004 has been passed or not. 65. Accordingly, the petitioner is directed to appear before the respondent no.2 on 20th of July 2026 at 11.00 a.m. If an order of assessment is found in the records of the said authority, no fresh order of assessment is required to be passed and it will be open to the authority to proceed as per law. 66. However, if no order of assessment has been passed, it will be open to the said authority to proceed as per law and pass an order of assessment after granting an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner. The impugned letter read with the observation sheet as referred to in the impugned letter reveals that the authority was asking the petitioner to produce books of 2026:JHHC:18192 25 account and the petitioner enjoyed the interim order of no coercive steps during the pendency of the writ petition. In such circumstances it cannot be said that the action of the respondents suffered from any delay or latches and admittedly for the said period no limitation was prescribed for passing the order of assessment which was introduced through amendment in the year 2010. 67. The order of assessment, if not already passed earlier, be passed within a period of 3 months from 20th of July 2026 and a copy of the same be communicated to the petitioner. The dates of hearing be communicated to the petitioner from time to time through e-mail at the id provided by the petitioner in the representation to be filed by the petitioner before the respondent no.2 along with this order and a record of this writ petition. In order to avoid any gap, the said authority may call upon the petitioner to file written submission also. 68. This writ petition is accordingly disposed of in the aforesaid terms. 69. Pending interlocutory application, if any, is closed. (Anubha Rawat Choudhary, J.) Dated: 22.06.2026 Uploaded On: 24.06.2026 Mukul/-