M/S. Capgemini Technology Services India Ltd v. Employees State Insurance Corporation And ORS

k 1/3 11 wp 1928.25 as.doc

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.1928 OF 2025 M/s. Capgemini Technology Services India Limited ....Petitioner V/S Employees State Insurance Corporation & Ors.

....Respondents _________ Mr. S.C. Naidu with Ms. Vasanti Kunder, Mr. V.M. Parkar, Ms. Divya Yajurved and Mr. Pradeep Kumar for the Petitioners. Ms. Seema Chopda for Respondents/ESIC.

__________ CORAM: SANDEEP V. MARNE, J.

DATE : 17 FEBRUARY 2025.

P.C.:

1.

The Petition challenges order dated 4 November 2024 passed by the learned Judge, Employees Insurance Court, Thane rejecting the application preferred by the Petitioner seeking exemption under provisions of Section 75(2-B) of the Employees State Insurance Act, 1948 (the Act).

2.

I have heard Mr. Naidu, the learned counsel appearing for the Petitioner and Ms. Chopda, the learned counsel appearing for Respondent-ESIC.

1 of

k 2/3 11 wp 1928.25 as.doc 3.

It appears that in the initial order passed under provisions of Section 45-A of the Act, the amount demanded was Rs.10,30,98,053/-. Before the Appellate Authority the Petitioner deposited the amount of Rs.2,57,74,513/- representing 25% of the demanded amount. In the Appeal however the demanded amount got reduced to Rs.4,97,64,483/-, 50% of which would have been less than the amount deposited by the Petitioner. However it appears that a fresh notice of demand was issued by the Respondent-Corporation by citing the reason of typographical error and the demand amount was increased to Rs.6,49,08,598/-. 4.

Thus the Petitioner has already deposited 50% of the original demanded amount of Rs.4,97,64,483/-. However this aspect is not considered by the learned Judge while passing the impugned order. In the reply filed by the RespondentCorporation opposing the exemption application, RespondentECIS has also confirmed the position that the only shortfall amount now is Rs.66,79,986/-. Considering the position that 50% of the original demanded amount has already been deposited by the Petitioner and the shortfall is only on account of the alleged typographical error on the part of the Respondent-Corporation, in my view, the Employees Insurance Court ought to have exercised the discretion by granting an order of exemption. 5.

Consequently the order dated 4 November 2024 is set aside. The Miscellaneous Application (ESI) No.8 of 2023 filed by the Petitioner is allowed in terms of prayers made therein. 2 of

k 3/3 11 wp 1928.25 as.doc 6.

Writ Petition is allowed in above terms. There shall be no order as to costs.

(SANDEEP V. MARNE, J.) by SUDARSHAN RAJALINGAM KATKAM Date:

2025.02.18 10:33:06 +0530 SUDARSHAN RAJALINGAM KATKAM 3 of