IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH C.R. No. 779 of 2009 (O&M) Date of Decision: 16.3.2009 M/s Carrier Air-conditioning and Refrigeration Limited ....Petitioner Versus Employees' State Insurance Corporation and others ...Respondents CORAM : Hon'ble Mr. Justice Rajesh Bindal Present:- Mr. Amit Jhanji, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Vikas Suri, Sr. Standing Counsel for ESIC with Mr. Rajiv Kumar Saini, Advocate for the respondents. RAJESH BINDAL J **** The challenge in the present petition is to the order dated September 25, 2008, passed by the learned Court below whereby the petition filed by the petitioner under Section 75 of the Employees' State Insurance Act, 1948 (for short 'the Act') has been rejected. Briefly the facts are that the petitioner filed the aforesaid petition before the learned Civil Judge (Sr. Division),Faridabad. After service of the respondents an application was filed under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC for return of the petition filed by the petitioner on the ground that proceedings regarding the subject matter in dispute were to be instituted in the Court having jurisdiction where the insured persons were working at the relevant time when the dispute arose. In the present case admittedly the insured employees were working at Gurgaon. Considering the aforesaid provisions of the Act, the learned Court below rejected the plaint. The petitioner being aggrieved against the order has filed the present petition. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that in case the learned Court below at Faridabad did not have the jurisdiction to try the claim made by the petitioner because of territorial jurisdiction and the bar under Section 76 of the Act, the right course was to return the plaint to the petitioner for presentation in the Court of competent jurisdiction within the fixed time farmed. -2- He has relied upon Auto Engineering Works Vs. Bansal Trading Company and others, 2002 (2) PLJ 444. Learned counsel for the respondent did not dispute the legal proposition raised by learned counsel for the petitioner. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. In the present case the only dispute is as to whether the learned Court below should have rejected the petition or returned the same to the petitioner for presentation in the Court of competent jurisdiction, in view of the fact that the same has been filed at Faridabad whereas the territorial jurisdiction to entertain the dispute was with the ESI Court at Gurgaon, in view of the fact that the insured employees were working at Gurgaon, I find that the learned Court below has committed illegality in rejecting the plaint and not returning the same back in original to the petitioner for presentation in the Court of competent territorial jurisdiction at Gurgaon. Accordingly, the impugned order passed by learned Court below is set aside and it is directed that the plaint in original shall be returned to the petitioner in accordance with law for presentation to ESI Courts at Gurgaon within one week from the date it is returned back to the petitioner. The parties are directed to appear before the learned Civil Judge (Sr. Division), Faridabad for the purpose of return of plaint on 30.3.2009. Learned counsel for the respondents submits that the ESI Courts at Gurgaon should consider preliminary objection raised by the corporation with regard to the entertain of objection of non compliance of Section 75 (2) (B) of the Act whereas learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the application for waiver of pre condition was filed along with the petition. As learned Court at Faridabad had not finally opined on the issue and the same is still pending, the ESI Court at Gurgaon shall take final decision thereon before proceeding with the case on merits. The petition is disposed of accordingly. (RAJESH BINDAL) 16.3.2009 JUDGE Reema