B. PRAKASH RAO, J :- These appeals are at the instance of the Employees' State Insurance Corporation, Hyderabad, under Section 82 of the Employees' State Insurance Act, 1948 (for short 'the Act'), aggrieved by the orders passed in E.!. Case Nos.85 of 2002, 101 of 2001 and 69 of 2001 respectively, dated 18.10.2004, 16.5.2003 and 18.10.2004 respectively, on the file of the Employees' Insurance Court and Chairman, Industrial Tribunal-I, Hyderabad, allowing the petitions filed by respondent No.1 herein under Section 75(1 )(g) of the Act seeking declaration of exemption from the applicability of the Act and the scheme there under for the periods mentioned in the respective petitions and consequently to set aside the respective demand notices issued by the appellant demanding certain amounts towards contribution and also interest thereon.

2. Heard Sri B.G. Ravindra Reddy, Smt. Pushpinder Kaur, Sri William Burra, learned Standing Counsel appearing on behalf I of appellant-Corporation and Sri M Radha Krishna Murthy, Sri Ch. Ramesh Babu and Sri K. Pinakapani, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the contesting respondents.

3. Since all the matters are on similar facts, the facts as stated in CMA No.266 of 2005 are being taken into consideration a for disposal of the appeals.

4. The brief facts of the case which gave rise to the present proceedings and which are not in dispute are that respondent No.1, who is the petitioner before the Employees' Insurance Court, claims to be a purchaser of the industry situated at Yerraguntla in Kadapa District, in the year 1982 from respondent No.3 who was original owner earlier and they are carrying on the business of manufacturing and sale of cement. The said area was brought under the coverage of the E.S.I. scheme with effect from 1.3.1986. However, in exercise of powers under Section 87 of the Act, the Government issued the proceedings in G.O. Rt. No.133, dated 8.2.1993, exempting the said industry from the operation of the provisions of the Act and the scheme for the period covering from 1.4.1991 to 31.3.1993. The said document was marked as EX.P.9. The said industry was exempted even from 13.1.1986. Subsequently, respondent No.1/petitioner has applied for similar such exemption from operation of the said Act in the scheme with effect from 1.4.1993. However, the said request was rejected as per the order in Ex. P .19 issued by the Director of Insurance Medical Sciences informing them that the Government by proceedings, dated 19.3.1999, have rejected their request for grant of exemption. This was followed by the demand notice, dated 16.4.1999. Thereupon, respondent No.1 herein has filed the present application purporting to be under Section 75(1)(g) of the Act seeking for the reliefs that they are entitled for exemption on the similar such grounds, as granted earlier, especially where they are providing all such benefits which are more superior and more advantageous than the one which could have been availed by the employees under the E.S.I. scheme.

5. The case of respondent No.1 in the said application before the primary authority rested on the ground that they have spent substantial amounts and established the hospitals and other pheripemial on and providing far better facilities and CJ therefore, they need to be exempted from that the coverage of the E.S.I. scheme. Since the Government has already exempted for Co the earlier period up to 3IJ.1993, similar such pre benefit should also be extended and of therefore, the order of rejection is not valid, wt more so, when it does not contain any valid aft reasons.

6. The said order of rejection by the 0 Government was challenged by the fn respondent No.1 in W.P. No.15956 of 1999, is: which was disposed of by a Division Bench of this Court along with a batch of cases observing that the respondent No. l/petitioner can approach the E.S.I. Court constituted under Section 74 of the Act by filing appropriate application and all questions including th