1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH : NAGPUR WRIT PETITION NO.1340 of 2010 Vijay Chandrakant Mandavgane ..vs.. Subodhkumar Manikchand Jain and Ors. Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court's orders Court's or Judge's orders or directions and Registrar's orders. CORAM : B.P. DHARMADHIKARI, J. DATED : JUNE 14, 2010. Heard Mr.P.N.Kothari, learned counsel for the petitioner, Mrs.B.P.Maldhure Advocate for respondent no.4 and Mr.R.P.Joshi, learned counsel for respondent no.1. The petitioner/Ori. Plaintiff challenges the order dated 4/3/2009 and 7/1/22009, whereby the trial court as also the appellate court have found that the suit filed by him seeking injunction against respondent no.4/Employees State Insurance Corporation was not maintainable in civil court. The suit challenges the notice of auction dated 16/12/2004 with contention that it is based on a notice of demand and the demand is in relation to a firm of which the petitioner is ceased to be a partner in March, 1997 itself. The communication dated 5th September, 2005 is pointed out to this court to urge that demands are for period from 27/6/2001 till December, 2003. The learned counsel states that the retirement deed as also the intimation of retirement is sent to Employees State Insurance Corporation is proved before the authorities and inspite of this, the trial court has erroneously relied on provisions of Section 75 of Sub-section 2 3 of the Employees’ State Insurance Act, 1948 to hold that it is Employees State Insurance Court which has got jurisdiction. Advocate Smt.Maldhure, learned counsel for respondent no.4 and Advocate Joshi, learned counsel for respondent no.1, have supported the impugned orders. It is pointed to this court by them that the petitioner has written subsequently to E.S.I. Authorities in 2003 wherein he has described himself as partner of the firm. It is further stated that the demand is not for period from 2001 till 2003 but demand is for period from 1994 till 2002. In this situation they argue that stipulation in auction notice published by the Provident Fund Department does not in any way affect the entitlement on rights of respondent no.4. With the assistance of all learned counsel, I have perused papers. The communication dated 5th Sept. 2005 does not give the period in relation to which dues are sought to be recovered. It only mentions serial number of various letters with their dates. The first such letter is dated 27th June, 2001 and last such letter appears to be of December, 2003. The petitioner has claimed retirement from a firm in 1997, however, he has not produced on record any authenticate document to show that he was so retired and thereafter the firm continued in the name of remaining partners. The subsequent communication shown to this court in 2003 also described him as partner. This description in 2003 is inconsistent with his stand that he stood retired in 1997. In this background the courts have found that unless and until the status of petitioner is decided finally, the contention about his retirement cannot be accepted. 3 Perusal of provisions of Section 75 of E.S.I.Act show that that section deals with matters to be decided by Employees Insurance Court. As per sub-section1 if any question or dispute arises as to whether particular person is or was the principal employer in respect of any employee, or if there is any 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, such question or dispute should be decided by the Employees’ Insurance Court. As per sub- section 3 of Section 75 of the Act, civil court shall not have jurisdiction to decide or deal with any question or dispute as aforesaid. The learned counsel for the petitioner had relied on later part of this sub-section but that later part deals with altogether independence contingency namely adjudication on any liability which by or under ESI Act is required to be decided by Medical Board or by Medical Appellate Tribunal or by Insurance Court. Bar of jurisdiction of civil court is apparent from Section 75 Sub section 3 read with Section 75(1)(d) and (g). It is to be noted that status of the petitioner either as partner or ex-partner is not relevant for the purpose of Section 75 of the Act at all. I therefore, find that no case is made out for interference. The writ petition is dismissed. No costs. JUDGE chute