Bombay High Court
Armastrong Machines Builders ... vs Union Of India And 3 Ors on 1 March, 2021
Bench: K.K. Tated, R. I. Chagla
26.wpl.2528.2020.doc
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION
WRIT PETITION (L) NO. 2528 OF 2020
M/s. Armstrong Machines Builders Pvt. Ltd. ... Petitioner
Versus
Union of India & Ors. ... Respondents
.........
Mr. J.S. Kini a/w Sapna Krishnappa, Gopal Parab, Prakash Shah for the
Petitioner.
Mr. Rajesh G. Singh for Respondent No.1.
Mr. Shailesh S. Pathak for Respondent Nos.2 and 3.
.........
CORAM : K.K. TATED &
R.I. CHAGLA, JJ.
DATE : 1st MARCH, 2021.
P.C. :-
1 Heard learned Counsel for the parties.
2 By this Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of
India, the Petitioner challenging the order/letter dated 13.03.2020
passed by Respondent No.3 holding that the Employee's State Insurance
Act, 1948 is applicable to the Petitioner from 2016. Whereas the main
contention of the Petitioner is that same is applicable to them from 2018
only.
Waghmare 1 / 4
26.wpl.2528.2020.doc
3 On the other hand the learned Counsel Mr. Shailesh S.
Pathak appearing on behalf of Respondent Nos.2 and 3 submits that the
Petition as it is filed by the Petitioner is not maintainable. He submits
that alternate efficacious remedy is available to the Petitioner. In support
of his contention, he relies on Section 75-1(A) (g).
4 The learned Counsel for Respondent Nos.2 and 3 also relies
on the judgment of this Court in the matter of United Labour Union vs.
Air India Ltd. and Others reported in 2016 III CLR page 682. Para 7 of
the said judgment reads thus :
"7 After having heard the learned counsel for the
respective parties, we are of the view that this petition
discloses that there are several disputed question of facts
which cannot be gone into by this court while exercising
its writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution
of India. Section 75(1)(g) of the ESI Act in terms
provides that in case of a dispute between the principal
employer and the corporation, such dispute has to be
decided by the Employees Insurance Court under the
said ESI Act. Said section 75(1)(g) reads as under :
"75. Matters to be decided by Employee's
Insurance Court. (1) If any question or dispute
arises as to -
(a) ..... .....
Waghmare 2 / 4
26.wpl.2528.2020.doc
(b) ..... .....
(c) ..... .....
(d) ..... .....
(e) ..... .....
(ee) .... ......
[***]
(g) any other matter which is in dispute between a
principal employer and the Corporation, or
between a principal employer and an immediate
employer or between a person and the
Corporation or between an employee and a
principal or immediate employer, in respect of any
contribution or benefit or other dues payable or
recoverable under this Act, [or any other matter
required to be or which may be decided by the
Employees' Insurance Court under this Act], such
question or dispute [subject to the provisions of
sub-section (2A)] shall be decided by the
Employees' Insurance Court in accordance with
the provisions of this Act."
5 At this stage, the learned Counsel for the Petitioner submits
that the Petitioner may be permitted to withdraw the present Writ
Petition with liberty to file the appropriate proceeding before the
Employees' Insurance Court. To that effect he has given in writing. Same
is taken on record and mark 'X' for identification. Same is accepted.
Waghmare 3 / 4
26.wpl.2528.2020.doc
6 Writ Petition stands disposed of as withdrawn with liberty as
prayed.
7 No order as to costs.
Digitally signed
by Waishali S.
Waishali Waghmare
S. Date:
Waghmare 2021.03.06
03:22:34
+0530
( R.I. CHAGLA, J. ) ( K.K. TATED, J. )
Waghmare 4 / 4
