Ms The Tata Pigments Limited Through Vaidyanathan Natarajan Vs Labour

2026:JHHC:20177

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI

W.P.(C) No. 6961 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.OBistupur, 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 Training, 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 (InsI), 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.

¶14

CORAM :HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE ANUBHA RAWAT CHOUDHARY

¶15

--For the Petitioner : Mr. Indrajit Sinha, Advocate : Mr. Ankit Vishal, Advocate For the Resp.-State : Mr. Krishna Kr. Bhatt, AC to SC-I For the ESIC : Mr. Ashutosh Anand, Advocate ---

¶16

18 /08.07.2026 Learned counsels for the parties are present.

¶17

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

¶18

“(i) An appropriate writ, order or direction for quashing of office order contained in memo no. 647 dated 21.03.2016 issued by respondent no.2, whereby exemption application

¶19

2026:JHHC:20177

¶20

filed by the petitioner for the year 2015 under Section 88 read with 91A of The Employees' State Insurance Act, 1948 has been rejected.

¶21

(ii) For issuance of further writ, order, direction for quashing of part of the demand notice (under Section 45A of The Employees' State Insurance Act, 1948) bearing No. 60000010710000306 /10132016337 dated 13.10.2016, so far it relates to demand with respect of amount of contribution payable for the period commencing from January, 2015 to December, 2015 amounting to Rs.12,29,085/.

¶22

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

¶23

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the matter relates to the period 2015. The application for seeking exemption was filed with supporting documents and the grievance of the petitioner in this case is that the person who has passed the impugned order dated 21.03.20216 (Annexure-4) never heard the petitioner.

¶24

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner has referred to paragraphs 13 and 14 of the writ petition which are quoted as under:

¶25

“ 13. The petitioner states that date for hearing of exemption application for 01.01.2015 to 31.12.2015 was given by Mr. Satish Kumar, Under Secretary, Department of Labour, Employment and Training, Government of Jharkhand. It is stated that the hearing of said application was held on 22.04.2015 before Mr. Rahul Sharma, though no effective hearing could take place due to some urgent work of aforesaid Mr. Rahul Sharma. Accordingly, the hearing was scheduled for 13.05.2015, when the same was heard by the aforesaid Sri Rahul Sharma, who was subsequently transferred on 28.07.2015. Soon thereafter, Ms. Mridula Sinha, Principal Secretary, Department of Labour, Employment and Training, Government of Jharkhand heard the application on 30^th September, 2015. However, the representatives of the Petitioner Company were informed on 30^th September, 2015, that the decision on ESI application for the year 2015 shall be communicated to Petitioner Company in due course of time.

¶26

14. That the petitioner states that thereafter Mr. Mukhmit Singh Bhatia has succeeded the chair and even without hearing, the petitioner has passed office order contained in

¶27

2

¶28

2026:JHHC:20177

¶29

memo no. 647 dated 21.03.2016. The said decision was communicated to the petitioner by post.”

¶30

5. Learned counsel for the petitioner has further submitted that the objection to the claim for exemption which was filed by the ESIC before the authority was also not served upon the petitioner. The learned counsel has submitted that on the aforesaid grounds, the impugned order be set-aside and the matter be remanded to the concerned authority for passing fresh order after granting opportunity of hearing to the parties.

¶31

6. Learned counsel for the respondent-State, in response, has referred to paragraph 17 of the counter-affidavit which is quoted as under:

¶32

“17. That with regard to the statements made in paragraph – 13 and 14 of the writ application under reply, it is stated and submitted that hearing of the case was transferred on administrative ground to another competent authority of the department and a competent authority of the department and a competent authority has passed speaking order after considering records/materials available and the submissions made by petitioner as well as Respondent no. 4 and 5, during the course of hearing of the petitioner’s case. Hence, no fault has been made by the competent authority.”

¶33

7. Learned counsel for the respondent- State has submitted that the impugned order does not call for any interference as the same is a speaking order.

¶34

8. So far as ESIC is concerned, they have also responded to the stand of the petitioner in paragraphs 13 and 14 of the writ petition in the following manner:

¶35

“10. That the statements made in para 9 to 13 are matters of record. Any statement made beyond the record is denied and disputed.

¶36

11. That with respect to the statements made in para 14, it is stated that the concerned authority has perused the documents available on record and passed the impugned order.”

¶37

3

¶38

2026:JHHC:20177

¶39

9. It is the specific stand of the ESIC that the concerned authority has perused the documents available on record and passed the impugned order.

¶40

10. The pleadings on record reveal that apparently the authority who has passed the impugned order, has not heard the matter and the impugned order also reflects that many aspects of the matter have not been properly considered. This is over and above the fact that the grievance of the petitioner is that even the response filed by ESIC was not served upon them.

¶41

11. Learned counsel for the respondents have submitted that the matter may be remanded so that a fresh speaking order is passed after hearing the parties.

¶42

12. After hearing the learned counsels for the parties, it appears to be admitted on record that the impugned order has been passed by the officer who never heard the parties and the hearing was going on before the predecessor of the chair. Thus, the impugned order suffers from gross violation of principles of natural justice and accordingly, cannot be sustained in law. Consequently, the impugned order contained in memo no. 647 dated 21.03.2016 is hereby set-aside.

¶43

13. At this, the learned counsels for the parties have submitted that the order of remand be in terms of order passed in WP(L) No. 4649 of 2022 with WP(L) No. 4650 of 2022.

¶44

14. It is relevant to note that the petitioner has filed different writ petitions for different periods out of which two writ petitions have been disposed of by way of remand to the respondent no.2 for fresh consideration; they are W.P.(C) No. 2808 of 2005 decided on 22.06.2026 and W.P.(C) No. 6957 of 2016 decided on 18.06.2026. WP(L) No. 4649 of 2022 with WP(L) No. 4650 of 2022 has been decided on 06.07.2026 relating to the period 2021 and 2022. In the order dated 06.07.2026, the direction/finding in connection with the periods involved in W.P.(C) No. 2808 of 2005 decided on 22.06.2026 and W.P.(C) No. 6957 of 2016 decided on 18.06.2026 have also been mentioned. Paragraphs 12 to 14 and relevant portion of paragraph 21 of order dated 06.07.2026 are quoted as under: -

¶45

4

¶46

2026:JHHC:20177

¶47

“12. After hearing the learned counsels for the parties, this Court finds that different view is being taken by the respondent no. 2 from time to time for different years with respect to entitlement of exemption under the aforesaid Act of 1948, although apparently, the employees in the petitionercompany are governed by the same terms and conditions of employment and it has become difficult to reconcile different orders. However, at the same time, there can be no dispute that the terms and conditions of arrangement for extending medical and other benefits to employees/ex-employees of the petitioner between TMH/Tata Steel Limited and the petitioner, as may be applicable from time to time, also has a bearing with respect to the claim for exemption.

¶48

In view of the orders contained in Memo No. 652 dated 28.03.2025 and memo no. 2187 dated 26.12.2025 as produced by the learned senior counsel for the petitioner during the course of hearing, whereby exemption has been extended for the years 2025/2026 after considering some of the heads of service conditions regarding medical benefits and refusal to extend the benefits of exemption for the periods 2021 and 2022 involved in these cases under the same heads of service conditions regarding medical benefits (except one), the impugned orders in these two writ petitions being inconsistent with the aforesaid two orders granting exemption for different periods cannot be sustained in law. As mentioned above, the learned counsels for the respondents are also not able to reconcile inconsistent orders during the course of arguments.

¶49

In aforesaid circumstances, this Court is of the considered view that the respondent no. 2 should consider the matter afresh and examine the case of exemption of the petitioner for the period involved in these writ petitions in the light of various orders with respect to claim for exemption of the petitioner passed from time to time and also in the light of the terms and conditions of employment of the employees /ex-employees of the petitioner and the terms and conditions of extension of benefit by TMH/Tata Steel Limited to the employees/ex-employees of the petitioner.

¶50

15………………………………………………………………

¶51

21………………………………………………. In W.P.(C) No. 2808 of 2005, following has been held:

¶52

Period 10/1996 to 12/1999	No application was	filed
	seeking exemption. petitioner cannot esca	The pe the
	liability for this period.
Period 2000	The application s	eeking
	exemption is required	to be

¶53

5

¶54

2026:JHHC:20177

¶55

	considered. The petitioner and ESIC were directed to appear on 13^thJuly, 2026 before the authority.
Period 2001	The application seeking exemption is required to be considered. The petitioner and ESIC were directed to appear on 13^thJuly, 2026 before the authority.
Period 2002-2004	Application seeking exemption has been rejected vide order dated 23.07.2005 for the period 2002 and vide order dated 14.05.2007 for the period 2003 to 2004. The
	orders refusing to grant
	exemption were not
	challenged in the said writ petition and they attained finality.

¶56

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

¶57

W.P.(C) No. 6957 of 2016 is related to the period 2011 to 2014 . Vide order dated 18.06.2026 passed in the said writ petition, the application seeking exemption has been directed to be considered and the parties to appear on 08^th July, 2026.”

¶58

21. Accordingly, the petitioner and the concerned officers of the ESIC are directed to appear before the respondent no. 2 on 22^nd July, 2026 at 11:00 a.m. with all the relevant records and the entire records of this case by filing a representation before the respondent no. 2.

¶59

22. The respondent no. 2 shall decide the applications seeking exemption for the period 2015 strictly in accordance with law taking into consideration the provisions of the aforesaid Act of 1948 and the rules framed thereunder and other materials which may be placed on record after himself granting an opportunity of hearing to the parties and pass a speaking order within a period of three months from the date of appearance of the parties. All the contentions of the parties are kept open.

¶60

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 22^nd July, 2026 itself.

¶61

6

¶62

2026:JHHC:20177

¶63

24. At this, learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that if so required, the authority may also issue notice to Tata Steel Limited/TMH as their agreement will fall directly into consideration and it is they who are providing the medical facilities through an arrangement.

¶64

It is sufficient to observe that if the aforesaid authority so requires, he may call upon Tata Steel Limited/TMH to explain the position.

¶65

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

¶66

26. The demand notice contained in Annexure- 6, so far as it relates to the period 2015 involved in this case, shall be kept in abeyance till the disposal of the case by the aforesaid authority.

¶67

27. This writ petition relating to the period 2015 is accordingly disposed of in the aforesaid terms.

¶68

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

¶69

(Anubha Rawat Choudhary, J.)

¶70

Date of Order: 08.07.2026 Pankaj Date of Uploading: 15.07.2026

¶71

7

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

Ravi Gope Vs the State of Jharkhand

Joel @ Jewel Murmu @ Joel Murmu Vs the State of Jharkhand

Pintu Kumar Das Vs the State of Jharkhand

Jogendra Rana Vs the State of Jharkhand

MD Altaf Vs the State of Jharkhand

Karan Kumar Vs the State of Jharkhand