Ms The Tata Pigments Limited Through Vaidyanathan Natarajan Vs Labour

2026:JHHC:17821

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI

W.P.(C) No. 6957 of 2016

M/s The Tata Pigments Limited, an existing company incorporated under the Companies Act through Vaidyanathan Natarajan, Son of Late S. Vaidyanathan, working as A.G.M. (HR & Business Excellence) cum Company Secretary, The Tata Pigments Limited, having registered office at Sakchi Boulevard, Jamshedpur, P.O. Bistupur, P.S. Bistupur, Town Jamshedpur-831002, District:- East Singhbhum, and having its Plant and Office at Jamshedpur, P.O.Bistupur, P.S.- Bistupur, District:- East Singhbhum.

¶5

… … Petitioner

¶6

Versus

¶7

The State of Jharkhand, through the Principal Secretary, Department of Labour, Employment and Training, Government of Jharkhand, Nepal House, Doranda, P.O. & P.S. Doranda, District- Ranchi.

¶8

The Principal Secretary, Department of Labour, Employment and Trailing, Government of Jharkhand, Nepal House, Doranda, P.O. & P.S. Doranda, District Ranchi.

¶9

Employees State Insurance Corporation, through its Director General, Panchdeep Bhawan Comrade Inderjeet Gupta (CIG) Marg, P.O. Indraprastha, P.S. Kotla Road, Town & District New Delhi.

¶10

The Regional Director, Employees State Insurance Corporation, Jharkhand, P.O. & P.S. Namkum, Town & District- Ranchi.

¶11

The Director, Employees State Insurance Corporation, Project Directorate, Jharkhand, P.O. & P.S. Namkum, Town & District Ranchi.

¶12

Deputy Director (Insl), Authorized Officer, Regional Office, Employees State Insurance Corporation, Jharkhand, P.O. & P.S. Namkum, Town & District-Ranchi.

¶13

S.S.O. Inspection Division, Employees State Insurance Corporation, Jamshedpur Division, P.O. Golmuri, P.S. Golmuri, Town Jamshedpur, District East Singhbhum. … … Respondents

¶14

¶15

CORAM :HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE ANUBHA RAWAT CHOUDHARY

¶16

¶17

For the Petitioner : Mr. Indrajit Sinha, Advocate For the Respondents : Mr. Ashutosh Anand, Advocate For the State : Mr. Munna Lal Yadav, SC (L&C)-III : Mr. Jazeb Iqbal, AC to SC (L&C)-III ---

¶18

12 /18.06.2026

¶19

1. Heard the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the parties.

¶20

2. This writ petition has been filed for the following reliefs:-

¶21

1

¶22

2026:JHHC:17821

¶23

i. An appropriate writ, order or direction for quashing of part of the Demand Notice No. 60000010710000306/10132016337 dated 13.10.2016 (under Section 45A of The Employees’ State Insurance Act, 1948), so far it relates to demand with respect of amount of contribution payable for the period commencing from October, 2011 to December, 2014 and January, 2016 to May, 2016 amounting to Rs.45,53,299/.

¶24

ii. For issuance of writ, order, direction commanding upon the respondent authorities particularly respondent Nos. 1 and 2 to immediate and forthwith take decision on the pending exemption application of the petitioner which is filed for the years 2011 to 2014 and 2016.

¶25

iii. Any other appropriate writ(s), order(s) or direction(s) as may be deemed fit and proper and for doing conscionable justice to the petitioner.

¶26

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the respondent ESIC has raised a demand for the period from October, 2011 to December, 2014 and January 2016 to May, 2016, but the applications seeking exemption for the year 2011, 2012, 2013 and 2014 remained pending from 25.01.2011, 22.11.2011, 29.10.2012 and 28.11.2014 respectively.

¶27

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that since the applications for exemption was pending and the same were not processed, the impugned demand is itself bad in law. Learned counsel has referred to the impugned order annexed at Annexure-10 and has submitted that as per the impugned order, while raising the demand, it has been intimating to the representative of the petitioner, who was appearing for the hearing, that as per Section 91(A) of ESI Act 1948 no order relating to grant of exemption can be issued retrospectively and therefore, the petition seeking exemption filed by the petitioner company for the calendar years 2011 to 2014, in respect of which no order was passed by the State Government, have become in-fructuous. 5. It is submitted that the notification of exemption for the period 01.01.2016 to 31.12.2016 has been placed on record by the respondents which was granted after expiry of the period vide notification dated 09.06.2017. The learned counsel submits that in the

¶28

2

¶29

2026:JHHC:17821

¶30

aforesaid circumstances, the assertion of the respondents in the impugned order that the exemption applications filed by the petitioner before the competent authority have become infructuous, is contrary to their own conduct as the exemption for the period 2016 was granted by the State government in the year 2017. The notification granting exemption has been brought on record at Annexure-A to the counter affidavit dated 07.09.2018 which is for the period 01.01.2016 to 31.12.2016 and exemption has been granted vide notification dated 09.06.2017.

¶31

6. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that complete set of impugned order dated 13.10.2016 has been placed on record by way of supplementary affidavit whose second page reveals that the demand was for the period from October, 2011 to December, 2015 and then from January, 2016 to May, 2016 and the period of default has been shown from June, 2011 to May, 2016.

¶32

7. Learned counsel submits that in view of the exemption granted for the period January 2016 to December, 2016, the demand relating to the period from 1/2016 to 5/2016 amounting of Rs.5,04,075/anyways is not sustainable in law.

¶33

8. Learned counsel for the petitioner has also submitted that as per the application seeking exemption, the employees under petitioner are entitled to all the benefits of hospital and full medical arrangement as is available in Tata Main Hospital as per the arrangement between the petitioner and the Tata Steel Limited (TISCO). He has further submitted that the terms and conditions of employment with respect to various facilities was also placed on record before the authority in a tabular form. Further, it is not clear from the records as to whether the employees of the petitioner have the same benefits of tie-up with other hospitals as may be applicable for employees of Tata Steel Limited (TISCO) and that arrangement between the petitioner and Tata Steel Limited (TISCO) can certainly be examined by the authorities.

¶34

9. Tata Main Hospital belongs to Tata Steel Limited (TISCO). So far as the case of Tata Steel Limited (TISCO) is concerned, the same

¶35

3

¶36

2026:JHHC:17821

¶37

is also involved in the batch of cases along with other different writ petitioners who availed the facilities from Tata Main Hospital. Learned counsel submits that if the facilities in Tata Main Hospital for a particular period are sufficient facility for Tata Steel Limited (TISCO), then there can be no reason that the same facilities being extended to the petitioner of the present case by Tata Steel Limited (TISCO) through Tata Main Hospital to be treated as insufficient.

¶38

10. Learned counsel for the respondent Employee State Insurance Corporation has submitted that the application for grant of exemption is filed before the Commissioner & Secretary, Department of Labour and Employment, State of Jharkhand, Ranchi and the organization ESIC is entitled to receive the amount unless exemption is granted. Exemption is not a matter of right, it is an exception and in absence of an order of exemption there can be no relaxation in favour of the petitioner. Mere filing of an application seeking exemption is not sufficient, the exemption application is required to be processed and granted and for non-disposal of the application seeking exemption, ESIC is not responsible. The learned counsel for the respondent has also submitted that the petitioner has clubbed different years right from 2011 onwards, but has not taken any steps for processing of their exemption application (s) with respect to one or the other year.

¶39

11. During the course of hearing, it transpired that the copy of exemption application was also forwarded by the petitioner to the Regional Director ESIC as well as Inspector/Manager ESIC with intimation to them so that they may also appear before the authority in the matter of hearing on the point of grant of exemption to the petitioner.

¶40

12. Learned counsel submits that the petitioner has two alternative remedies which he has not availed; one is appeal under Section 45AA of the Act of 1948 against the demand raised and so far as Section 75 1 (g) of ESI Act is concerned, if any dispute arises, the person who is

¶41

4

¶42

2026:JHHC:17821

¶43

or was the principle employer in respect of an employee may approach the labour court for adjudication of the matter.

¶44

13. Learned counsel for the respondent has referred to Annexure-4 series that these are the objection raised by ESIC before the Principal Secretary Department of Labour, Training and Employment, Government of Jharkhand with respect to exemption applications filed by the petitioner. The objections raised are for the period 2013.

¶45

14. Learned counsel for the respondent has also referred to the judgment passed by the Hon’ble Bombay High Court, Nagpur Bench, reported in 2006 SCC OnLine BOM 513 [Ramchand Onkarlal Agarwal v. Union of India and others] and has referred paragraph 50 and has submitted that in the said case also the application for exemption was pending and the matter was remitted to the authority for deciding the same as per law.

¶46

15. After hearing the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the parties, it is not in dispute that the applications seeking exemption for the period 2011, 2012, 2013 and 2014 were filed and remained pending before the Commissioner & Secretary Department of Labour, Employment and Training, Jharkhand, Ranchi from 25.01.2011, 22.11.2011, 29.10.2012 and 28.11.2014. Admittedly, exemption has been granted for the year 2016 in the year 2017 for the period from January, 2016 to December, 2016.

¶47

16. In the meantime, the impugned order has been passed by the ESIC dated 30.10.2016 raising the demand for the period from October, 2011 to December, 2014 and January, 2016 to May, 2016 by observing that the matter seeking exemption for the period 2011 to 2014 had becomes infructuous. The records of the case reveal that notices were also issued to the Regional Office Jharkhand of Employee State Insurance Corporation, Namkum Branch as contained in Annexure 4-series with respect to some of the periods and the copies of the exemption application was also forwarded to the Employees State Insurance Corporation, Namkum, Ranchi. It is further not in dispute that these applications seeking exemption for the

¶48

5

¶49

2026:JHHC:17821

¶50

period 2011, 2012, 2013 and 2014 were filed and remained pending before the aforesaid competent authority.

¶51

17. This Court is of the considered view that the applications seeking exemption for the period for the period 2011, 2012, 2013 and 2014 having been filed and remaining pending before the Commissioner & Secretary, Department of Labour and Employment, State of Jharkhand, Ranchi, who is the competent authority to consider the applications, the Employees State Insurance Corporation while raising a demand could not have said that the applications seeking exemption have become infructuous. However, even the aforesaid authority is not justified in keeping the applications seeking exemption pending for indefinite period. This Court is of the considered view that once an application seeking exemption is filed, the matter is required to be taken to a logical end and it is for the authority concerned to take a call with regard to the fate of the application and pass appropriate orders as per law. It would certainly be open to the competent authority to take every aspect of the matter including the provisions of law and examined as to whether the parties have acted as per law, but the applications seeking exemption having remained pending before the competent authority in which notices were also issued upon the ESIC authorities by the competent authority, authorities under ESIC could not have said that the matters seeking exemption have become infructuous.

¶52

18. In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances, this Court is of the considered view that the impugned demand dated 13.10.2016 for the period October, 2011 to December, 2014 and January 2016 to May, 2016 could not have been enforced through the impugned order. This is over and above the fact that the exemption for the period 1/2016 to 12/2016 was already granted to the petitioner vide notification dated 09.06.2017 which was issued after the issuance of the impugned demand dated 13.10.2016 (Annexure-10) and thus the impugned demand for the period 1/2016 to 5/2016 does not survive any more. However, the pending applications seeking exemption for

¶53

6

¶54

2026:JHHC:17821

¶55

the period from 2011 to 2014 is certainly required to be decided by the aforesaid authority in accordance with law including the provisions of the aforesaid Act of 1948 and the rules framed thereunder.

¶56

19. At this, the learned counsel for the respondents has submitted that the applications have to be decided by the Respondent no.2, the Principal Secretary Department of Labour, Employment and Training, State of Jharkhand, Ranchi.

¶57

20. In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances and the submissions, the respondent No.2 is directed to decide the pending applications seeking exemption as filed by the petitioner for the period 2011 to 2014. The following chart would show the period and the date of filing application seeking exemption under the aforesaid Act of

¶58

1948:-

¶59

Sl.no.	Period	Date of application seeking exemption
1.	2011	25.01.2011
2.	2012	22.11.2011
3.	2013	29.10.2012
4.	2014	28.11.2014

¶60

21. Accordingly, the petitioner and the concerned Officers of the ESIC are directed to appear before the respondent No.2 on 08^th July, 2026 at 11:00 AM with all the relevant records and the entire records of this case by filing a representation. The petitioner shall file a copy of the application seeking exemption for the period 2011 to 2014 under the aforesaid Act of 1948 along with its enclosures before the respondent no.2.

¶61

22. The respondent no.2 shall decide the said applications seeking exemption for the period 2011 to 2014 strictly in accordance with law taking into consideration the provisions of the aforesaid Act of 1948 and the rules framed thereunder after himself granting an opportunity of hearing to the parties and pass a speaking order within a period of six weeks thereafter. All the contentions of the parties are kept open.

¶62

7

¶63

2026:JHHC:17821

¶64

23. The order to be passed by the respondent No.2 be communicated to the parties through speed post and also through e- mail, and the e-mail id and the contact number be furnished by the parties to the aforesaid authority on 08^th July, 2026 itself.

¶65

24. In order to ensure that there is no gap, the respondent No.2 may call upon the parties to file their written submissions.

¶66

25. The impugned demand dated 13.10.2016 (Annexure-10) for the period 2011 to 2014 shall be kept in abeyance till the final decision and subject to the result of the adjudicating authority.

¶67

26. So far as the period 2015 is concerned, the same is not involved in this case as per the prayer and no application seeking exemption for the period 2015 has been placed on record. It would be suffice to observe that the impugned demand (Annexure-10) with respect to the period 2015 does not call for any interference in this writ petition and it will be open to the respondents to take steps as per law for the period 2015. However, it is important to note that as per counter affidavit filed by the respondent nos. 1 and 2 the prayer for exemption for the period 2015 has been rejected and as per rejoinder the order of rejection has been challenged in W.P.(C) No. 6961 of 2016.

¶68

27. The impugned demand (Annexure-10) for the period 1/2016 to 5/2016 is quashed as the exemption has been granted for the period 1/2016 to 12/2016 to the petitioner vide notification dated 09.06.2017 as mentioned above

¶69

28. This writ petition is accordingly disposed of in the aforesaid terms.

¶70

29. Pending interlocutory application, if any, is closed.

¶71

(Anubha Rawat Choudhary, J.)

¶72

18.06.2026 Rakesh/Uploaded On:- 20.06.2026

¶73

8

Ms The Tata Pigments Limited Through Vaidyanathan Natarajan v. Labour

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ms The Tata Pigments Limited Through Vaidyanathan Natarajan v. Labour

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Pradeep Kumar Mahto Vs the State of Jharkhand

Central Coalfields Limited through Its General Manager (Land and Revenue) Vs Ramdeo Ganjhu

Abhay Tiwary @ Anshu Kumar Tiwary Vs the State of Jharkhand

Xyz Vs the State of Jharkhand

Mohan Rajak Vs the State of Jharkhand

Ankush Kumar @ Ankush Vs the State of Jharkhand through A.C.B.