THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT PETITION NO.9696 OF 2010 Dated 27th April, 2010 Between: M/s.Surya Teja Placement Maintenance and Services Contractors, Rep. by its Propietor, K.N.Srinivasa Rao. …Petitioner And The Director General, Employees state Insurance Corporation, Hyderabad and 2 others. …Respondents Counsel for the petitioner : Mr.P.Vara Prasad Rao Counsel for respondent Nos.1 & 2: Mr.B.G.Ravinder Reddy, SC for ESI Counsel for respondent No.3: ----- The Court made the following: Order: This Writ Petition is filed for a Mandamus to exempt the petitioner from the mandatory provision of Section 75 (2) (b) of Employees State Insurance Act, 1948. The petitioner raised a dispute before the Employees Insurance Court and the Chairman, Industrial Tribunal, Hyderabad (for short ‘the Insurance Court’) in respect of demand of Rs.9,80,610/- made against it towards insurance arrears. The petitioner filed IA.No.160 of 2009 before the Insurance Court for waiver of the condition of pre-deposit of the demanded amount. The Insurance Court by the impugned order partly waived the pre-deposit requirement by permitting the petitioner to deposit 25% of the disputed amount. Feeling aggrieved by the non-waiver of pre-deposit to the full extent, the petitioner filed the present Writ Petition. Under Section 75 (2) (b) of the Act, the dispute raised before the Insurance Court shall not be entertained unless the person raising such dispute deposits with the Court 50% of the amount due from it. The said provision however vests discretion in the Court to reduce the amount for reasons to be recorded in writing. Accordingly, the Insurance Court reduced the pre-deposit to 25%. In my opinion, the Insurance Court has exercised its discretion in passing the said order. This Court exercising jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India will not sit in appeal over such discretion exercised by the Insurance Court as the same cannot be said to be either arbitrary or irrational. For the above-mentioned reasons, I do not find any reason to interfere with the order of the Insurance Court. The learned Counsel for the petitioner however makes a request for permitting the petitioner to pay the 25% pre-deposit amount within a reasonable time. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, the time for payment is extended by two months from today. Subject to the above direction, the Writ Petition is dismissed. As a sequel to dismissal of the Writ Petition, WPMP No.12502 of 2010 filed by the petitioner for interim relief is disposed of as infructuous. C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY, J Dated 27th April, 2010 lur