THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT PETITION NO. 8750 OF 2010 Dated 21st April, 2010 Between: G.Shanta Kumari …Petitioner And Employees State Insurance Corporation and two others …Respondents Counsel for the petitioner : Sri Sharad Sanghi Counsel for respondent No.1: B.G.Ravinder Reddy The Court made the following ORDER: This writ petition is filed for a Mandamus to declare the action of respondent No.1 in attaching and seizing the property admeasuring Acs.0.62 ½ cents in Survey No.248 of Chittoor Municipality, Chittoor Mandal, along with the machinery etc as illegal and arbitrary. A perusal of the impugned order shows that an amount of Rs.1,09,957/- was recoverable towards arrears of Employees’ State Insurance contribution from M/s Venkateswara Granites, Chittoor, and that the petitioner is described as lessee of the said premises. In the said order, the petitioner is prohibited and restrained from transferring or changing the property. Panchanama prepared under Appendix-20 shows that the property along with the building was attached for realisation of the said arrears. At the hearing, Sri Sharad Sanghi, learned counsel for the petitioner, submitted that the petitioner has purchased open land and that she is neither lessee of M/s Venkateswara Granites nor in any way connected with the said entity, which fell in arrears and for recovery of which the impugned order has been passed. The learned counsel representing Sri B.G.Ravinder Reddy, learned Standing Counsel for respondent No.1, submitted that the petitioner has got an effective remedy of approaching the Employees’ Insurance Court under Section 75 (1) (g) of the Employees’ State Insurance Act, 1948 (for short “the Act”). The learned counsel for the petitioner, however, stated that as his client not being a principal employer or an immediate employer is not entitled to approach the said Court. Section 75 (1) (g) of the Act reads as under: 75. Matters to be decided by Employees’ Insurance Court:- (1) If any question or dispute arises as to- (a) …… (b) …… (c) …… (d) …… (e) …… (f) …… (g) any other matter which is in dispute between a principal employer and the Corporation, or between a principal employer and an immediate employer, or between a person and the Corporation or between an employee and a principal or immediate employer, in respect of any contribution or benefit or other dues payable or recoverable under this Act, or any other matter required to be or which may be decided by the Employees’ Insurance Court under this Act, such question or dispute subject to the provisions of sub-section (2A), shall be decided by the Employees’ Insurance Court in accordance with the provisions of this Act. In my opinion, the petitioner falls within the expression “person” referred to in the abovementioned provision. Ordinarily this Court does not entertain writ petitions filed bypassing effective alternative remedy. Therefore, the petitioner is entitled to approach the Insurance Court for adjudication of the dispute raised in this writ petition. In this view of the matter, the writ petition is dismissed, without going into the merits of case, with liberty to the petitioner to file appropriate application before the Employees’ Insurance Court to question the order impugned in this writ petition. As a sequel to dismissal main petition, WPMP No.11282 of 2010 filed by the petitioner for interim relief is disposed of as infructuous. C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY, J Dated 21st April, 2010 vrn