Dismissed
Partha Pratim Tiwari v. the Employee State Insurance Corporation
Gauhati HCWP(C)/2433/2026
Case brief
from the order text
What is this about?
GAHC010089732026 2026:GAU-AS:6407 THE…
What the court decided
AI extract
GAHC010089732026 2026:GAU-AS:6407 THE…
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
Page No.# 1/5
GAHC010089732026
2026:GAU-AS:6407
THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH)
Case No. : WP(C)/2433/2026
PARTHA PRATIM TIWARI
R/O HOUSE NO. 39, JURONI PATH, RUKMINIGAON, GUWAHATI, P.O. KHANAPARA, P.S. DISPUR DISTRICT KAMRUP (M) ASSAM 781022
VERSUS
THE EMPLOYEE STATE INSURANCE CORPORATION THROUGH THE DIRECTOR GENERAL, PANCHADEEP BHAWAN, CIG ROAD, NEW DELHI-110002.
2:REGIONAL DIRECTOR ESI CORPORATION NE REGION PANCHDEEP BHAWAN BAMUNIMAIDAN GUWAHATI-22
3:THE ASSISTANT DIRECTOR EMPLOYEES STATE INSURANCE CORPORATION REGIONAL OFFICE NE REGION PANCHDEEP BHAWAN BAMUNIMAIDAN GUWAHATI-22 4:RECOVERY OFFICER EMPLOYEES STATE INSURANCE CORPORATION REGIONAL OFFICE NE REGION INSURANCE PANCHDEEP BHAWAN BAMUNIMAIDAN GUWAHATI-22
5:KANAK CHANDRA BASUMATARY RECOVERY OFFICER EMPLOYEES STATE INSURANCE CORPORATION
Page No.# 2/5
REGIONAL OFFICE NE REGION PANCHDEEP BHAWAN BAMUNIMAIDAN GUWAHATI-22
6:YOGESH PRAKASH RECOVERY OFFICER EMPLOYEES STATE INSURANCE CORPORATION REGIONAL OFFICE NE REGION PANCHDEEP BHAWAN BAMUNIMAIDAN GUWAHATI-2
Advocate for the Petitioner : MR. K SINGHA, M DEVI,G L BORA
Advocate for the Respondent : SC, ESIC,
BEFORE
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DEVASHIS BARUAH
ORDER
11.05.2026
Heard Mr. K. Singha, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner and Mr. M. Smith, learned Standing Counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent Nos. 1, 2, 3 & 4.
2. Taking into account the order which this Court proposes to pass, this Court dispenses with the service upon the respondent Nos. 5 & 6.
3. The petitioner herein has assailed the order dated 10.03.2026, by which, the Regional Director, i.e., the respondent No. 2 herein; has passed an order in exercise of power under Section 85-B of the Employees’ State Insurance Act, 1948; thereby, imposing an amount
Page No.# 3/5
of Rs. 5,79,264/- as damages for the wage period from 01.03.2016 to 31.12.2019.
4. It is the case of the petitioner that for the period from March 2016 to December 2019, a total amount of Rs. 9,61,491/- was payable. In pursuance to the directions issued, the petitioner duly paid the said amount and from the perusal of the order, dated 03.07.2025 issued by the respondent No. 4, it would be apparent that there was no outstanding dues payable by the petitioner.
5. The learned counsel further submitted that for the period from June 2020 to March 2025, an amount of Rs. 83,60,352/- was held to be payable by the petitioner. However, the petitioner, upon explaining to the authorities concerned, the respondent No. 3 had categorically held that for the period from June 2020 to March 2025, there was no amount payable by the petitioner.
6. However, to the shock of the petitioner, a Notice, dated 18.02.2026 was received from the respondent No. 2 to appear before him and explain as to why damages to the extent of Rs. 5,79,264/would not be payable by the petitioner.
7. Pursuant thereto, an order was passed on 10.03.2026, which was digitally signed on 13.03.2026; thereby, imposing damages to the tune of Rs. 5,79,264/- for the period from 01.03.2016 to 31.12.2019.
8. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner
Page No.# 4/5
submitted that there is no amount which the petitioner is liable to pay and infact, the petitioner had paid more than what is required, as per the ESI Act, 1948.
9. Mr. M. Smith, learned Standing Counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent Nos. 1, 2, 3 & 4 submitted that the question, as to whether the petitioner is liable to pay more or the fact that the petitioner had paid more amount than what is required; are questions of facts and in that regard, as the petitioner has an alternative and efficacious remedy before the Employees’ Insurance Court, in terms of Section 75(g) of the ESI Act, 1948; this Court may not like to entertain the instant writ petition.
10. This Court has given anxious consideration to the respective submissions and taking into account the issue involved, as to whether the petitioner is not liable to make any payment or the fact that the petitioner had already paid more than what is required for the period from 01.03.2016 to 31.12.2019; are questions of facts, which can best be redressed before the Employees’ Insurance Court, wherein, these facts can be adequately dealt with.
11. Accordingly, this Court, therefore, is not inclined to entertain the instant writ petition, for which, the same stands dismissed.
12. Before parting with the records, this Court, however, observes that the dismissal of the instant writ petition shall not prejudice or
Page No.# 5/5
preclude the petitioner to approach the Employees’ Insurance Court, in terms of Section 75(g) of the ESI Act, 1948, if so advised.
JUDGE
Comparing Assistant
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the writ petition is maintainable against an order imposing damages under Section 85-B when the petitioner has an alternative remedy before the Employees' Insurance Court under Section 75(g).
2 provisions across 1 enactments
Partha Pratim Tiwari
The Employee State Insurance Corporation through the Director General
Regional Director, ESI Corporation NE Region
The Assistant Director, Employees State Insurance Corporation Regional Office NE Region
Recovery Officer, ESI Corporation Regional Office NE Region (Insurance)
Kanak Chandra Basumatary, Recovery Officer, ESI Corporation
Devashis Baruah
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court