Disposed¶18

Indusekhar Panda v. Employees State Insurance Corporation,(Esic)

Orissa HC5 Feb 2024WP(C)/7784/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Disposal (not adjudication) of a 2019 Orissa High Court writ petition against ESIC Bhubaneswar over disputed E.S.I. Act, 1948 coverage of the petitioner's establishment; liberty granted to pursue Section 75 E.I. Court route with condonation of delay; strict four-week cut-off imposed, beyond which the E.I. Court may reject filings and ESIC may proceed per its impugned communications. Judge: Justice Sanjay Kumar Mishra; counsel: S. Sastry (petitioner), A.P. Ray (Corporation); order dated 05.02.2024.

What did the court decide?

Liberty to the petitioner to approach the Employees' Insurance Court under Section 75 of the E.S.I. Act, 1948 with an application for condonation of delay, subject to a four-week deadline; urgent certified copy of the order to be granted on proper application as per rules. ¶18

Indusekhar Panda Vs Employees State Insurance Corporation,(Esic) — Orissa HC (2024) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶18

Issue for consideration

Whether, since the coverage of the petitioner's establishment under the E.S.I. Act, 1948 is disputed and must be substantiated with evidence, the writ petition should be withdrawn with liberty for the petitioner to seek adjudication before the Employees' Insurance Court under Section 75 of the Act. +1 more

¶15

Court's answer

Accepting the petitioner's submission, the court disposed of the writ petition, granting the petitioner liberty to approach the Employees' Insurance Court under Section 75 of the E.S.I. Act, 1948, with liberty to file an application for condonation of delay alongside.

¶18

Ratio / Principle

As a condition attached to the disposal, the petitioner was required to approach the E.I. Court within four weeks, along with the application for condonation of delay.

¶19

Key takeaways

Any application preferred before the E.I. Court beyond the four-week window may not be considered by that court, and in that event the Corporation would be at liberty to proceed further in terms of the impugned communications challenged in the writ petition.ratio¶19

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Orissa High Court (S.K. Mishra J., 05.02.2024) disposed of W.P.(C) No.7784 of 2019 (Indusekhar Panda v. Employees’ State Insurance Corporation, Bhubaneswar and others) on the petitioner's own prayer. Because the coverage of the petitioner's establishment under the E.S.I. Act, 1948 was disputed and had to be substantiated with evidence, counsel sought withdrawal of the writ petition with liberty to seek adjudication before the Employees' Insurance Court under Section 75 of the Act, together with an application for condonation of delay. The court granted the liberty as prayed for but fixed a four-week window: filings made with the E.I. Court beyond that period may not be considered, failing which the Corporation remains free to proceed in terms of the impugned communications challenged in the petition.

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK

¶2

W.P.(C) No.7784 of 2019

¶3

Indusekhar Panda

¶4

….. Petitioner

¶5

Employees’ State Insurance Corporation, Bhubaneswar and others

¶6

Mr. S. Sastry, Advocate Vs. ….. Opposite Parties

¶7

Mr. A.P. Ray, Advocate

¶8

CORAM: JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR MISHRA

¶9

ORDER

¶10

05.02.2024

¶11

Order No. The matter is taken up through hybrid mode.

¶12

1. Heard Mr. Sastry, learned Counsel for the Petitioner so also

¶13

Mr. Ray, learned Counsel for the Corporation.

¶14

During hearing, learned Counsel for the Petitioner submits, though the writ petition was preferred in the year 2019, much after i.e. on 02.03.2023, a Counter Affidavit has been filed taking a stand there in as to maintainability of the Writ Petition on the ground of availability of alternative remedy under Section 75 of the E.S.I. Act, 1948.

¶15

Mr. Sastry further submits, since the coverage of the Petitioner’s Establishment under the E.S.I. Act, 1948 is disputed; it has to lead evidence to substantiate such stand. Accordingly, Mr. Sastry prays for withdrawal of the Writ Petition with liberty to approach the Employees’ Insurance Court under Section 75 of the Act, 1948.

¶16

Page 1 of 2

¶17

Learned Counsel for the Petitioner submits, since there is a period of limitation to approach the E.I. Court, his client be permitted to move an application for condonation of delay along with application under Section 75 of the E.S.I. Act, 1948, and a direction be given to the E.I. Court to consider the application for condonation of delay and deal with and dispose of the Section 75 application on merit.

¶18

In view of such submission made by the learned Counsel for the Petitioner, the Writ Petition stands disposed of with liberty, as prayed for.

¶19

Needless to mention here that if the Petitioner fails to approach the E.I. Court within four weeks hence, as prescribed under Section 75 of Act, 1948 along with application for condonation of delay, any application preferred before the E.I. Court beyond the time granted, may not consider by the concerned Court and the Corporation will be at liberty to proceed further in terms of the impugned communications made in the Writ Petition.

¶20

Urgent certified copy of this order be granted on proper application as per rules.

¶21

(S.K.MISHRA) JUDGE

¶22

Padma

¶23

Signature Not Verified

¶24

Digitally Signed Signed by: PADMA CHARAN DASH Designation: Personal Assistant Reason: Authentication Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUT TACK Date: 07-Feb-2024 20:00:56

¶25

Page 2 of 2

Indusekhar Panda v. Employees State Insurance Corporation,(Esic)

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Indusekhar Panda v. Employees State Insurance Corporation,(Esic)

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Pramila Samantaray Vs Collector,Khurda

Trinath Dash Vs State of Odisha

Padma Ch.Swain Vs Mahendra and Mahendra

Murali Nayak Vs State of Odisha

Krushna Ch.Padhi Vs State and Ors.

Lily Padhy@Runu Padhy Vs Kamal Singh