M/s. Madanapally Institute of Technology and Science, Vs Employees State Insurance Corporation

M/s. Madanapally Institute of Technology and Science, Angallu, Madanapally - 517325, Chittoor Dist. A.P, Represented by Shri M. Dinesh, Age 41 years, S/o Shri M Munaswamy Naidu, Manager (HR) Adhar No.^874308732943 and Mob.No. 91600 20714

¶12

...Petitioner

¶13

AND

¶14

Employees State Insurance Corporation, Having Regional Office, Dr.No.59-23, Hill Fort Road, Adarshanagar, Hyderabad Rep. by its Deputy Director 2. The Recovery Officer, Employees State Insurance Corporation, Dr.No.5-923, Hill Fort Road, Adarshanagar, Hyderabad.

¶15

The Industrial Tribunal cum Labour Court, And Special^{CourtfortheTrialof} offences under ESI Act, 1948, Guntur.

¶16

...Respondents

¶17

Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may be pleased to issue a writ, order or direction, more particularly^awrit in the nature of Writ of CERTIORARI calling for the records relating to the Order Dt.24-03-2025 in Case No.ESI 2 of 2023 (Old ESI No.53 of 2017 at Hyderabad ESI Court) issued by the Hon’ble ESI Court, Guntur, and quash the same, declaring that the respondents Article 14^{oftheConstitution} of

¶18

t--

¶19

India, ignored the principles of natural justice and also issued the impugned orders under Sec.45A dt. 19-1-2015 and connected notices for recovery of the contributions as calculated by the 1st and 2nd Respondents in violation of the provisions of the ESI Act, 1948.

¶20

lA NO: 1 OF 2025

¶21

Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the writ petition, the High Court may be pleased to pass interim orders to suspend the orders dated 24-03-2025 in Case No.ESI 2 of 2023 (old ESI No.54 of 2017 at Hyderabad ESI Court) passed by the Industrial Tribunalcum-Labour Court and Special Court for the Trial of Offences under ESI and all other connected Orders and connected Act, 1948, Guntur, notices for recovery of^{thecontributions} as calculated by the 1st and 2nd Respondents, pending disposal of the main Writ Petition.

¶22

Counsel for the Petitioner: SRI Y. SURYA PRASAD represented^SRI YAGATI M S R N SURYA TEJA

¶23

Counsel for the Respondents: SRI V CH NAIDU

¶24

The Court made the following order:

¶25

1

¶26

APHC010376382025

¶27

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI

¶28

[3328]

¶29

(Special Original Jurisdiction)

¶30

WEDNESDAY,THE SIXTH DAY OF AUGUST TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE

¶31

PRESENT

¶32

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE GANNAMANENI RAMAKRISHNA

¶33

PRASAD

¶34

WRIT PETITION No: 19414 of 2025

¶35

Between:

¶36

1.M/S. MADANAPALLY INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY AND SCIENCE ANGALLU, MADANAPALLY 517325, CHITTOOR DIST. A.P, REPRESENTED BY SHRI M. DINESH, AGE 41 YEARS, S/0 SHRI^M MUNASWAMY NAIDU, MANAGER (HR) ADHAR NO. 8743 0873 2943 AND MOB.NO. 91600 20714

¶37

...PETITIONER

¶38

AND

¶39

EMPLOYEES STATE INSURANCE CORPORATION, HAVING REGIONAL OFFICE, DR.NO.5-9-23, HILL FORT ROAD, ADARSHANAGAR, HYDERABAD REP. BY ITS DEPUTY DIRECTOR

¶40

2.THE RECOVERY OFFICER, EMPLOYEES STATE INSURANCE CORPORATION, DR.NO.5-9-23, HILL FORT ROAD, ADARSHANAGAR, HYDERABAD.

¶41

3.THE INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL CUM LABOUR COURT, AND SPECIAL COURT FOR THE TRIAL OF OFFENCES UNDER ESI ACT, 1948, GUNTUR.

¶42

...RESPONDENT(S):

¶43

Counsel for the Petitioner:

¶44

/

¶45

1.YAGATI M S R N SURYATEJA

¶46

/

¶47

Counsel for the Respondent{S):

1.VCH NAIDU

2

N

The Court made the following:

¶52

ORAL ORDER:

¶53

Heard Sri Y. Surya Prasad, learned Counsel appearing^{onbehalfofSri} Yagati MSRN Surya Teja, learned Counsel for the Writ Petitioner and Sri V.Ch. Naidu, learned Standing Counsel appearing for the Respondents. 2. Sri V.Ch. Naidu, learned Standing Counsel appearing for the Respondents has raised a preliminary objection with regard to the availability of the statutory remedy. He would submit that the impugned Order is passed by the Judicial Forum and therefore, the present Writ Petition is not maintainable. 3. At this stage, learned Counsel for the Writ Petitioner seeks to withdraw this Writ Petition with liberty to file a regular statutory Appeal under Section 82 of the Employees’ State Insurance Act, 1948. 4. Having regard to this submission, this Court grants permission to withdraw this Writ Petition with liberty to the Writ Petitioner to file a statutory Appeal. 5. It is clarified that the number of days from the date of filing of the present Writ Petition till today shall not be reckoned for calculation of limitation in this matter.

¶54