Date on which Order was reserved

:

03.03.2026

Date on which Order was

pronounced

:

10.04.2026

Date on which Order was uploaded

on the website of the High Court

:

10.04.2026

APHC010579172016

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH

AT AMARAVATI

(Special Original Jurisdiction)

[3327]

FRIDAY, THE TENTH DAY OF APRIL

TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY SIX

PRESENT

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE K SREENIVASA REDDY

WRIT PETITION NO: 23255/2016

Between:

1. SMT. R. SRIVALLI, CHITTOOR DIST., , R/O DOOR NO.20-

1-470/5-A, KORLAGU NTA, TIRUPATHI, CHITTOOR

DISTRICT.

...PETITIONER

A N D

1. UNION OF INDIA LABOUR NEW DELHI 2 OTRS,

MINISTRY OF LABOUR AND EMPLOYMENT, REP.BY ITS

SECRETARY, SHRAMA SAKHI BHAVAN, RAIL MARG,

NEW DELHI-110001.

2. THE DEPUTY DIRECTOR, EMPLOYEES INSURANC E

CORPORATION, REGIONAL OFFICE, HYDERABAD.

3. ANDHRA PRADESH STATE ROAD TRANSPORT

CORPORATION REP BY, ITS REGIONAL MANAGER,

NELLORE.

...RESPONDENT(S):

Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying that

in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High

Court may be pleased to issue a Writ, order or direction more

particularly one in the nature of writ of mandamus, declaring the action

of the 2nd respondent in issuing the proceedings vide No.AP/Ins.II/

52000282330001001 dated 5.5.2016 of the 2nd respondent and also

consequential order vide& No.AP/INS-II/52- 00-028233-000-1001/493

dated 15.7.2015 proceedings of the 2nd respondent as illegal,

unconstitutional, colourable exercise of power and contrary to the

SRK, J

W.P.No.23255 of 2016

2

provisions of the Employees State Insurance Act, 1948 and the rules

and regulations framed thereunder, and also contrary to the

proceedings of the No.E5/ 122(7)/2012-RM(NLR) dt.13.03.2012, and

set-aside the same

IA NO: 1 OF 2016(WPMP 28637 OF 2016

Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the

circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition,

the High Court may be pleased to suspend the proceedings of No.

AP/Ins.II./52000282330001001 dated 5-5-2016 and No. AP/INS-

II/52-00-028233-000-1001/ 493, dated 15-07-2015 issued by the

2nd respondent, pending disposal of the writ petition.

IA NO: 2 OF 2017(WPMP 141600 OF 2017

Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the

circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition,

the High Court may be pleased

Counsel for the Petitioner:

1. J UGRANARASIMHA

Counsel for the Respondent(S):

1. K JAGAN MOHAN REDDY

2. P DURGA PRASAD SC FOR APSRTC

3. P RAJASEKHAR

4. B G RAVINDER REDDY

5.

VENKATESHWARLU GUMMADAVELLY

The Court made the following:

SRK, J

W.P.No.23255 of 2016

3

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE K SREENIVASA REDDY

WRIT PETITION NO.23255 OF 2016

O R D E R

This Writ Petition was filed seeking the following relief:

“…to issue an appropriate Writ, Order or direction more

particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus, declaring the

action of 2

nd

respondent in issuing the Proceedings vide

No.AP/Ins.II/52000282330001001, dated 05.05.2016 of 2

nd

respondent and also consequential Order vide No.AP/INS-II/52-00-

028233-000-1001/493, dated 15.07.2015 proceedings of 2

nd

respondent, as illegal, unconstitutional, colourable exercise of

power and contrary to the provisions of the Employees State

Insurance Act, 1948 and the rules and regulations framed

thereunder and also contrary to the Proceedings of

No.E5/122(7)/2012-RM (NLR), dated 13.03.2012 and set-aside the

same and pass such other order or orders …”

2. Contents of the affidavit filed by the Writ Petitioner, in

brief, are that 2

nd

respondent awarded a Tender vide Proceedings

No.E5/122(7)/2012-RM (NLR), dated 13.03.2012 specifying her

contract only for Two (02) years, and it was further mentioned that

it can be extended for One (01) more year; that the said contract

specified the number of workers as Four (04) Sweepers and One

(01) Attender and also specified the amount at Rs.28,901/- per

month. The said proceeding confirms the total employees limited

to Five (05) only.

SRK, J

W.P.No.23255 of 2016

4

(b) The intention of Legislature is clear that 1

st

respondent can invoke its powers to cover any Unit as stipulated

under Section 1 (5) of the Employees’ State Insurance Act, 1948

(for brevity ‘the ESI Act, 1948’). The individual, who covered the

Writ Petitioner, is none other than an Inspector, under Section 45

of the ESI Act, 1948, without any verification of the documents.

The Writ Petitioner was covered on adhoc basis by issuing C-18

Notice, but not by verifying the records, which is an admission on

the part of 1

st

and 2

nd

respondents.

(c) If the respondent Nos.1 and 2 intend to extend the

purview and scope under Section 1 (5) of the ESI Act, 1948, the

scheme has been extended to Shops, Hotels, Restaurants,

Cinemas including Preview Theatres, Road Motor Transport

Undertakings and Newspaper Establishments, and it should be 20

employees without the aid of power, and 10 or more employees

with the aid of power. That distinction was made by the ESI Act,

1948 under Section 2 (12) of the ESI Act, 1948. But, 3

rd

respondent, being a State or the instrumentality of the State,

confirmed in the agreement vide Proceedings No.E5/122(7)/2012-

RM (NLR), dated 13.03.2012 that only five (05) persons were

deployed to the sanitation work of seeping, cleaning of garage

SRK, J

W.P.No.23255 of 2016

5

yard and DMs Office at Nellore-II Depot, thus, 2

nd

respondent

high-handedly invoked the provisions of law without consulting the

Writ Petitioner nor getting any explanation from her.

(d) After receiving Adhoc Notice under C-18, the Writ

Petitioner issued a legal notice. Respondent No.2 further went on

and issuing C-19 Notice without verification of records from 3

rd

respondent, and further issued Section 45A of the ESI Act, 1948

Order dated 15.07.2015 directing to pay half of the amount and

finally, issued a proceeding threatening the Writ Petitioner to

invoke the provisions of law as contemplated under Section 45-C

to 45-Ia of the ESI Act, 1948, which is nothing but, sort of

excessive exercise of power by 2

nd

respondent, and such action is

contrary to 1

st

respondent and its coverage procedure under the

ESI Act, 1948.

(e) Respondent No.1 widely published in its webpage

making applicable to non-seasonal factories employing 10 or more

persons, under Section 2 (12) of the ESI Act, 1948. If that is so,

even according to 1

st

respondent, contrary to their stand, they

applied the scheme against the Writ Petitioner. The contract of the

Writ Petitioner is only for Two (02) years and expired along with

the time prescribed in the said proceedings of 3

rd

respondent. The

SRK, J

W.P.No.23255 of 2016

6

mandatory obligation on the part of Writ Petitioner is that, she

shall not engage more than Five (05) persons as stipulated under

the Agreement. In the light of above said provisions of law, and

also under the instructions of 1

st

respondent, 1

st

respondent

contract, with 3

rd

respondent was only for Two (02) years and

expired after Two (02) years and at any given point of time,

exceeded Five (05) employees, the question of coverage under

the ESI Act, 1948 does not arise at all.

(f) The Writ Petitioner was continuing 3

rd

respondent

contract and the said contract was already expired and the Writ

Petitioner worked with the said contract only with Five (05) people

as directed under the clauses of the contract, so, it is not the case

of 1

st

and 2

nd

respondents to do the coverage according to their

choice. Hence, the Writ Petition.

3. Respondent Nos.1 and 2 filed counter-affidavit,

denying the contents of the Writ affidavit, contending inter alia that

the ESI Act, 1948 has been enacted for the benefit of workers to

render medical benefits to them and their family, as enumerated in

Section 46 of the ESI Act, 1948. The Writ Petitioner is the

Proprietor of M/s. R.Srivalli Labour Contractor and an

Establishment under Section 1 (5) of the ESI Act, 1948 with Code

SRK, J

W.P.No.23255 of 2016

7

No.79000282330001001 (previously 52000282330001001) and

the same was communicated vide Form C-11 dated 26.11.2007

with effect from 01.07.2007. The Writ Petitioner is required to pay

the contributions under Sections 40 and 44 of the ESI Act, 1948

read with Regulations 26, 29 and 31 of the ESI (General)

Regulations, 1950.

(b) The Writ Petitioner filed the Writ Petition with false,

untrue, frivolous and unsustainable allegations and approached

the Court with unclean hands. The Writ Petitioner herself

submitted in Form-I dated 26.10.2007 that a total of 27 employees

were directly employed by the Writ Petitioner for the purpose of

contract with the Municipal Corporation, Tirupati vide Contract

No.Roc.No.2412/F1, dated 29.06.2007. The Insurance Inspector,

Tirupati visited and filled in, and submitted Form-I of the Writ

Petitioner, Form C-11 dated 26.11.2007 was issued with an

intimation that the said establishment comes under the purview of

the ESI Act, 1948 under Section 1 (5) with effect from 01.07.2007.

(c) The Writ Petitioner was provided with an opportunity

of hearing on 28.05.2015 for C-18 Adhoc Notice dated 07.05.2015

for an amount of Rs.2,84,750/- for the period from 04/2009 to

03/2011, but, the Writ Petitioner failed to attend the personal

SRK, J

W.P.No.23255 of 2016

8

hearing. The Writ Petitioner was also provided with another

opportunity on 07.07.2015 vide Letter dated 05.06.2015, but, the

same was also not utilized by the Writ Petitioner. The Writ

Petitioner was issued Section 45-A dated 15.07.2015 for an

amount of Rs.1,44,788/- for the period from 06/1020 to 03/2011

excluding the period 04/2009 to 05/2010 (as the said period was

time barred) deducting Rs.1,39,962/-. In response to that, the Writ

Petitioner vide Letter dated 06.08.2015 informed that she

executed housekeeping work for the period 04/2012 to 03/2014

and that, she executed no work from 03/2014 and hence, she had

not paid ESI contributions. In reply to the above representation,

2

nd

respondent issued a letter dated 24.08.2015 to Writ Petitioner,

to prefer an appeal under Section 45-AA of the ESI Act, 1948

before the Appellate Authority, Regional office, ESI Corporation,

Hyderabad on or before 12.09.2015 depositing 25% of the

contributions as per the Order i.e. Rs.36,197/-, failing which,

further action will be initiated under Section 45-C to 45-I without

any further notice. The Writ Petitioner did not make any

compliance against the above notices/letter. With no other

alternative, the respondents issued C-19 dated 25.02.2015 to the

Recovery Officer against the Writ Petitioner for an amount of

SRK, J

W.P.No.23255 of 2016

9

Rs.2,35,442/-. The Writ Petitioner made another representation

dated 28.03.2016 stating that she executed housekeeping for the

period from 07/2007 to 03/2010 in the Municipal Corporation,

Tirupati and that, from 13.03.2012 to 03/2014 supplied employees

five (05) in number for housekeeping services at APSRTC and

that, no work was executed by her for the period between the two

contracts. The Writ Petitioner is well aware about the notices

served form the respondents and the respondent issued letter

dated 05.05.2016, wherein it was clearly specified that due to lack

of response from the Writ Petitioner, 2

nd

respondent issued C-19.

(d) The respondent issued C-18 Adhoc notice dated

07.05.2015 due to non-compliance of Writ Petitioner for the said

period, and because of her failure to submit the document in

support of her contention, 2

nd

respondent was left with no other

alternative. The Health, Medical and Family Welfare Department,

Government of Andhra Pradesh in G.O.Rt.No.1613, dated

12.10.1999 stated that only the regular employees of APSRTC are

exempted from the provisions of the ESI Act, 1948, but, as the

Writ Petitioner herself submitted in Form-I that 27 employees were

working directly, the Writ Petitioner is liable to pay the ESI

SRK, J

W.P.No.23255 of 2016

10

contributions for them. Hence, it is prayed to dismiss the Writ

Petition.

4. Respondent No.3 filed counter-affidavit, denying the

allegations made in the Writ affidavit, contending inter alia that

according to the allotment order, the Writ Petitioner has to employ

Four (04) Sweepers and One (01) Attender to perform the seeping

and cleaning work and the Writ Petitioner entered into the

Agreement on 22.03.2012 and attended the above work.

(b) According to Clause No.31 of the Agreement, the Writ

Petitioner has to comply with all the provisions of the Act of the

Government relating to Labour, Rules and Regulations made

thereunder from time to time like payment of Minimum Wages,

Provident Fund, EDLIF, ESI, Weekly Off etc., and the contract

was completed by 21.03.2014. Therefore, the Writ Petitioner has

to pay the necessary contribution towards ESI for the period for

the workmen she engaged at that time. The Writ Petitioner had

not approached the Court with clean hands and violated the

provisions of the ESI Act, 1948. Hence, it is prayed to dismiss the

Writ Petition.

5. Learned counsel for the Writ Petitioner would contend

that the Writ Petitioner covered under Adhoc basis but not on

SRK, J

W.P.No.23255 of 2016

11

actual basis and the same was admitted by the respondents. The

Writ Petitioner did not take any contract of Housekeeping for the

period from June, 2010 to December, 2010 and January, 2011 to

March, 2011 and to that effect, the Writ Petitioner obtained a

Certificate from the Health Officer, Municipal Corporation, Tirupati

and therefore, demanding the Writ Petitioner by issuing Notice

dated 02.05.2016 to pay Rs.2,35,442/- towards contribution in

respect of employees for the aforesaid period is illegal. The

Proceedings No.E5/122(7)/2012-RM(NLR), dated 13.03.2012 is

unilateral one and subsequent to the tender made by the Writ

Petitioner. Learned counsel would further contend that 2

nd

respondent has to explain for covering the Writ Petitioner under

the scheme of the ESI Act, 1948 as an individual suo motu or

unilaterally and the burden lies on 2

nd

respondent and its

Inspectors as contemplated under Section 45 of the ESI Act,

1948, who covered the Writ Petitioner under the ambit of the ESI

Act, 1948. According to the learned counsel, 2

nd

respondent high-

handedly invoked the provisions of the ESI Act, 1948 neither

consulting the Writ Petitioner nor getting an explanation from her

and the impugned Order dated 05.05.2016 issued by 2

nd

SRK, J

W.P.No.23255 of 2016

12

respondent and its consequential order dated 15.07.2015 are

illegal and unconstitutional.

6. Learned Central Government Counsel for respondent

No.1 would contend that the Writ Petitioner in her Form-I dated

26.10.2007 stated that a total of 27 employees were directly

employed by her for the purpose of contract with the Municipal

Corporation, Tirupati vide Contract No.Roc.No.2412/F1, dated

29.06.2007 and accordingly, the Insurance Inspector, Tirupati

issued Form C-11 dated 26.11.2007 with an intimation that the

said establishment comes under the purview of the ESI Act, 1948

under Section 1 (5) with effect from 01.07.2007. Learned counsel

would further contend that sufficient opportunity for hearing was

provided to the Writ Petitioner, but, she failed to attend to utilize

the same. Even, the Writ Petitioner was issued Section 45-A

dated 15.07.2015 for an amount of Rs.1,44,788/- for the period

from 06/1020 to 03/2011 excluding the period 04/2009 to 05/2010

by deducting a sum of Rs.1,39,962/-, but the Writ Petitioner had

not paid the ESI contributions. According to the learned counsel,

the Writ Petitioner is well aware of the notices served from the

respondents.

SRK, J

W.P.No.23255 of 2016

13

7. Learned Standing Counsel for respondent No.2 would

contend that the ESI Act, 1948 has been enacted for the benefit of

workers to render medical benefits to them and their family, as

enumerated in Section 46 of the ESI Act, 1948, and the Writ

Petitioner, being the Proprietor of M/s. R.Srivalli Labour

Contractor, an Establishment under Section 1 (5) of the ESI Act,

1948, required to pay the contributions under Sections 40 and 44

of the ESI Act, 1948 read with Regulations 26, 29 and 31 of the

ESI (General) Regulations, 1950. Learned counsel would further

contend that only the regular employees of APSRTC are

exempted from the provisions of the ESI Act, 1948, but, as the

Writ Petitioner herself submitted in Form-I that 27 employees were

working directly, the Writ Petitioner is liable to pay the ESI

contributions for them.

8. Sri P.Durga Prasad, learned Standing Counsel for

ASPRTC representing respondent No.3 would contend that the

Writ Petitioner as per the Agreement dated 22.03.2012 performed

the seeping and cleaning work by engaging Four (04) Sweepers

and One (01) Attender and as such, according to Clause No.31 of

the Agreement, the Writ Petitioner has to comply with all the

provisions of the ESI Act, 1948.

SRK, J

W.P.No.23255 of 2016

14

9. Perused the entire material available on record.

10. A perusal of the Allotment Order vide No.E5/122(7)/

2012-RM(NLR), dated 13.03.2012 issued by 3

rd

respondent goes

to show that the Writ Petitioner was awarded the contract of

Seeping, Cleaning of Garage Yard and DMs Office including

sanitation and providing of Attender to DMs Office at Nellore-II

Depot. The total number of workers to be deployed were Four (04)

Sweepers and One (1) Attender and the remuneration payable

was at Rs.28,901/- per month. It was further mentioned in the said

Allotment Order that the contract period was valid for Two (02)

years initially and extendable for One (01) more year subject to

satisfactory performance of the contractor.

11. A perusal of the Memo vide USR No.16622 of 2026

filed by respondents goes to show that on 26.10.2007, the Writ

Petitioner furnished the information under Form-01 as per

Regulation 10-B of the Employees’ State Insurance Corporation

Regulations, in the Employers’ Registration Form that, the total

number of employees employed for wages directly and through

immediate employers’ on the date of application, were 27 and the

total wages payable to them is Rs.75,816/-. Respondent No.2 vide

AP/INS.II/52000282330001001/493, dated 07.05.2015 issued C-

SRK, J

W.P.No.23255 of 2016

15

18 Adhoc Notice to the Writ Petitioner questioning that, so far she

had not paid the contributions as per the provisions of law and

also not submitted return of contributions for the period from

4/2009 to 3/2011 and thereby, called for explanation to show

cause as to why an amount of Rs.2,84,750/-, which was

determined, could be recovered towards contribution payable in

respect of the employees in the Establishment run by the Writ

Petitioner under Section 45-A of the ESI Act, 1948 by 28.05.2015.

12. Vide No.AP/Ins.II/52-00-0282330001001/493, dated

05.06.2015, 2

nd

respondent addressed a letter to the Writ

Petitioner stating that as neither the Writ Petitioner attended the

hearing on 28.05.2015 nor any response was received, in order to

provide another opportunity of being heard, to render natural

justice, as a special case, the Writ Petitioner was afforded with

another opportunity on 07.07.2015 to represent her case either in

person or through an authorized representative along with all

records and failing which, further action against Section 45-A

order will be initiated without any further notice.

13. Admittedly, as the Writ Petitioner did not appear

before the said authority, the impugned Order under Section 45-A

of the ESI Act, 1948 vide No.AP/INS-II/52-00-028233-000-

SRK, J

W.P.No.23255 of 2016

16

1001/493, dated 15.07.2015 was passed by 2

nd

respondent, in

exercise of the powers delegated and it was ordered that an

amount of Rs.1,44,788/- for the period from 01.06.2010 to

31.03.2011 is finally determined towards payment of contributions

and the Writ Petitioner, as one of the principal employers, was

ordered to pay the said amount within a period of 15 days from the

date of the said order, failing which, the amount shall be caused to

be recovered under Sections 45-C to 45-I of the ESI Act, 1948. In

the said impugned Order, it was further mentioned that in case,

the Writ Petitioner has any objection so far as the Order is

concerned, an appeal under Section 45-AA can be filed for

reconsideration by the Appellate Authority, ESI Corporation,

Hyderabad and such an appeal has to be submitted within 60

days of the said Order, by depositing 25% of the amount

determined or actual amount of contributions payable as per their

records, whichever is higher.

14. A perusal of the material on record goes to show that

subsequent to the impugned Order dated 15.07.2015, the Writ

Petitioner addressed a letter to 2

nd

respondent on 12.08.2015

informing that subsequent to the housekeeping work for the period

from April, 2012 to 21

st

March, 2014, she had not taken any

SRK, J

W.P.No.23255 of 2016

17

housekeeping contract works. The said letter further discloses that

she had not paid the contributions towards ESI from March, 2014,

and she did not take up the housekeeping works.

15. It is the contention of learned Standing Counsel for

2

nd

respondent that the Writ Petitioner having covered under the

provisions of the ESI Act, 1948, is required to pay the contribution

under Section 40 through and at the rates specified in Rule 51 of

the ESI (General) Rules, 1950 as amended in respect of the

employees within 21 days from the last day of calendar month in

which the contributions fall due, as laid down in Regulation 31 of

the Employees’ State Insurance (General)Regulations, 1950.

16. A perusal of the letter dated 29.03.2016 addressed to

2

nd

respondent would reveal that the Writ Petitioner concedes that

she engaged Five (05) workers for the period from 13.03.2012 to

March, 2014 to attend the contract work in 3

rd

respondent and for

the period from March, 2010 to March, 2012, she did not take up

any contract works either in the Municipal Corporation or in 3

rd

respondent/APSRTC, but, she received notices from 2

nd

respondent from July, 2010 to March, 2011 directing the Writ

Petitioner to pay the contributions of the employees for the

aforesaid period. According to learned counsel for Writ Petitioner,

SRK, J

W.P.No.23255 of 2016

18

the Writ Petitioner paid the ESI contributions in respect of Five

(05) workers engaged for the contract work done with 3

rd

respondent i.e. from 13.03.2012 to March, 2014. Indeed,

Certificate dated 17.10.2015 issued by the Health Officer,

Municipal Corporation, Tirupati vide RO.No.5354/2015/H1, dated

17.10.2015 is to the effect that the Writ Petitioner had not supplied

any labour on contract basis from 01.04.2010. Admittedly, the

period mentioned in the impugned Order dated 15.07.2015 is from

01.06.2010 to 31.03.2011.

17. Learned counsel for the Writ Petitioner would contend

that reasonable opportunity has not been afforded to the Writ

Petitioner subsequent to issuance of C-18 Adhoc notice and the

entire inquiry was conducted in a biased manner. Learned counsel

placed reliance on the proposition of law laid down in Foundever

CRM India Pvt. Ltd. and another v. Employees State

Insurance Corporation and others

1

, wherein it was held as

under: (paragraph No.74)

“74. The ESIC Revenue Manual, in particular Section

L.12.5, explicitly mandate that any order under Section 45A

must be a well-reasoned speaking order and must be

preceded by affording the employer a reasonable opportunity

of being heard. In L.12.9 of the said Manual, requires that prior

1

Writ Petition (L) No.36012 of 2024, dated 19.09.2025 on the file of the High Court of

Judicature at Bombay.

SRK, J

W.P.No.23255 of 2016

19

to issuing a Section 45A order against C18 (Adhoc) and C18

(Actual) notices, the Authority must ascertain whether any

representation from the employer is pending, and in all cases,

allow a minimum period of 30 days for the employer to appear

for a personal hearing or submit a written representation.

These procedural safeguards, which are integral to ensuring

fairness in quasi-judicial proceedings under ESI Act, were not

addressed or considered in the SRTC Tech Solutions Private

Limited (supra), thereby limiting its applicability and

diminishing its precedential value.”

From a perusal of the entire material on record, it is

apparent that in C-18 (Adhoc) notice, dated 07.05.2015, the Writ

Petitioner was given time for 15 days to file statement giving full

particulars of the contributions actually due as per the records and

she was directed to appear before the authority on 28.05.2015.

When the Writ Petitioner did not appear before the authority, 2

nd

respondent again issued Notice dated 05.06.2015 providing

another opportunity of being heard and directed to represent

before the authority on 07.07.2015 and as there was no

representation from the Writ Petitioner, the impugned Order dated

15.07.2015 was issued under Section 45A of the ESI Act, 1948.

But, when the Certificate dated 17.10.2015 issued by the Health

Officer, Municipal Corporation, Tirupati that the Writ Petitioner had

not supplied any labour on contract basis from 01.04.2010, the

SRK, J

W.P.No.23255 of 2016

20

impugned Order dated 15.07.2015 ordering the Writ Petitioner to

pay the contributions for the period from 01.06.2010 to 31.03.2011

appears to be unjustifiable. Therefore, in order to avoid further

proliferation of the matter, this Court is of the considered opinion

that one more opportunity can be afforded to the Writ Petitioner to

put-forth her case before the respondents-authority, along with

relevant documents, which would clear the ambiguity.

18. Accordingly, the impugned Proceedings No.AP/Ins.II/

52000282330001001, dated 05.05.2016 and also the

consequential impugned Order vide No.AP/INS-II/52-00-028233-

000-1001/493, dated 15.07.2015 issued by 2

nd

respondent are

hereby set-aside. The respondent No.2 is directed to issue fresh

C-18 (Adhoc) Notice to the Writ Petitioner within Four (04) weeks

from the date of receipt of copy of this Order and on receipt of the

same, the Writ Petitioner shall appear before 2

nd

respondent for

personal hearing along with relevant record available with her, and

upon such personal hearing, the respondent No.2 shall pass

appropriate orders by affording reasonable opportunity to the Writ

Petitioner as contemplated under Section 45A of the ESI Act,

1948.

SRK, J

W.P.No.23255 of 2016

21

19. With the above observation, the Writ Petition is

disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs of the Writ

Petition.

As a sequel thereto, the miscellaneous applications, if any,

pending in this Writ Petition shall stand closed.

____________________

JUSTICE K. SREENIVASA REDDY

10

th

April, 2026.

DNB