07.09.2026 (M/L-28) Ct.-30 (NMD) IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA CONSTITUTIONAL WRIT JURISDICTION APPELLATE SIDE WPA 17986 of 2026 Medilab Diagnostic and Polyclinic Pvt. Ltd. & Anr. -Vs- The State of West Bengal & Ors. Mr. Indranil Nandi, Adv. Mr. Deba Prasad Samanta, Adv. Mr. Sayak Konar … For the Petitioners Mr. Shiv Sankar Banerjee, Adv. Mr. Amit Dey, Adv. …For the State Ms. Soumi Guha Thakurata, Adv. …For the ESIC 1. The writ application has been preferred challenging an order bearing no. C/Ins. Br.II/4100055056000143/5045877/622 dated 26.05.2026 passed by the respondent no.3, Employee’s State Insurance Corporation. 2. The learned Counsel appearing for the petitioners states that though the impugned order is an order under Section 45A of the E.S.I. Act and is appealable under the Act before the tribunal, the petitioner has approached this Court on the issue that the petitioner’s establishment is not covered under the ESI 2 Act. It is further stated that in spite of raising the issue before the authority, the authority did not consider and/or decide the said issue. 3. It appears that the respondent no.3 relied upon a document, which he has recorded as follow: “On detailed scrutiny of S.O. 45A (erstwhile ) dated 05.08.2016, it is found that the authorized officer upheld the coverage as the employer disputed the coverage and determined a contribution of Rs. 203775/- though 45A (erstwhile) for the period 11/2012 to 12/2015.” 4. But it appears that in spite of relying upon the said document, the respondent no.3 has not disclosed the contents of the said documents and has made a general observation about coverage of the petitioner establishment. There is no discussion as to what is the content of the said document dated 05.08.2016 on the basis of which the authority concerned has held that the petitioner is covered under the Act. 5. On being directed the respondent authority has filed report in the form of an affidavit along with a copy of the order passed 3 under Section 45(A) of the ESI Act dated 4th August, 2016 along with other documents to substantiate that the petitioners establishment is covered under the ESI Act. From the said documents it appears that there are ten employees in the said establishment, which thus prima facie covers the establishment under the Act. 6. On filing an exception to the report, the petitioner relies upon the following judgments:- State of Rajasthan v. Lord Northbrook reported at (2021) 16 Supreme Court Cases 400. Muir Mills Unit of N.T.C. (U.P.) Ltd. v. Swayam Prakash Srivastava and Another reported at AIR 2007 SC 519. 7. Learned Counsel for the petitioners submits that there are two doctors who are attached to the petitioners diagnostic centre, only on part time basis. It is stated that the part time employees are not to be counted to calculate the number of employees in an establishment. He further states that the medical professionals are not attached on full time basis with the establishment. It is thus submitted that the petitioners establishment is not 4 covered under the ESI Act, the number of employees being less than 10 (ten). 8. Learned Counsel for the State has brought the notice of this Court to the provision under Section 75 and 78 of the ESI Act and submits that the questions raised by the petitioner in the present writ application are to be decided by the ESI Court under the said provision of the Act as the ESI Court has also been given the power of Civil Court under Section 78 of the ESI Act to decide such issues. It appears that the petitioner has neither preferred an appeal under Section 45A of the Act against the order passed Under Section 45A of the ESI Act nor has he approached the ESI Court under Section 75 of the Act. The petitioner has relied upon a judgment of the Supreme Court claiming that in spite of alternate remedy being available, he can approach the writ court. 9. Considering the respective submission, this Court is of the view that there being a specific provision under the Act which the petitioner can approach to redress his grievance, this Court should not entertain such applications where the only purpose 5 is to avoid the limitation or pre-deposit or any other similar facts whatsoever in cases of such nature. 10. The writ application is accordingly disposed of with liberty to the petitioner to approach the appropriate forum. 11. Urgent Photostat Certified Copy of this order, if applied for, be given to the parties on payment of requisite fees. (Shampa Dutt (Paul), J.)