THE HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE SRI NISAR AHMAD KAKRU and THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR WRIT APPEAL No. 404 OF 2010 Dated: 09-06-2010 Between: G. Shanta Kumari ... APPELLANT AND Employees State Insurance Corporation, rep., by its Recovery Officer, Mr. George, situated at door No.-9-31/1/B, Opp: Old Gandhi Medical College, Basheerbagh, Hyderabad and two others ... RESPONDENTS THE HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE SRI NISAR AHMAD KAKRU and THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR WRIT APPEAL No. 404 OF 2010 JUDGMENT: (per the Hon’ble the Chief Justice Sri Nisar Ahmad Kakru) The appellant – writ petitioner claims to have purchased pro admeasuring Ac.0.62 ½ cents in Survey No. 248 of Chittoor Municip Chittoor Mandal from M/s. Venkateswara Granites which came to be atta because of failure of the vendor to pay employees’ state insu contributions amounting to Rs.1,09,957/-. The crux of the objection r against the order before the writ court was non-applicability of the provi of the Employees State Insurance Act, 1948 (for short ‘the Act’) t appellant which could not prevail on the writ Court because of availabi alternative remedy under Section 75 (1) (g) of the Act which reads: 75.“Matters to be decided by the 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.” Notwithstanding the availability of the remedy, the appellant inv the extraordinary writ jurisdiction which she ought to have not. We will be failing in our duty if we do not place on record that refe was made by the learned counsel for the appellant to Section 93A of th which reads: “93A. Liability in case of transfer of establishment Wherein an employer, in relation to a factory or establishment transfers that factory or establishment in whole or in part, by sale, gift, lease or licence or in any other manner whatsoever, the employer and the person to whom the factory or establishment is so transferred shall jointly and severally be liable to pay the amount due in respect of any contribution or any other amount payable under this Act in respect of the periods up to the date of such transfer: PROVIDED that the liability of the transferee shall be limited to the value of the assets obtained by him by such transfer. A plain reading of the section makes it very clear that even if a fa or establishment is transferred in part, still provision of liability is attra Viewed thus, indulgence is declined. Dismissed. SANJAY KUMAR, J NISAR AHMAD KAKRU, CJ 09-06-2010 K. Shyleshi