( 1 ) THE vires of sub-section (5) of Section 1 of the Employees stale Insurance Act, 1948 (hereinafter called and referred to for the sake of brevity as "the said Act") is in question in this writ petition.

( 2 ) THE writ petitioner herein has also questioned an order dated 26th/28th December 2001 issued by the Regional Director of the employees Stale Insurance Corporation whereby and whereunder its establishment was held to be covered under the provisions of the said Act as also a notice dated 30th January 2002 in terms whereof the petitioner has been directed to deposit a sum of Rs. 11,61,875. 00. FACTS

( 3 ) THE petitioner is a company incorporated under the companies Act. It carries on business as a construction contractor.

( 4 ) ACCORDING to the petitioner, as neither at its registered office nor at construction sites any manufacturing activity is carried out, it does not come within the expression "factory" as occurring in Section 2 (12) of the Act. It allegedly has employed less than 20 persons in its office. It has been contended that the office of the company is not a "shop" inasmuch as there does not exist any go-down nor any stock is stored therein far less any sale or purchase is carried on from the said premises nor any services therefrom are rendered to any customer.

( 5 ) ADMITTEDLY, at the relevant point of time, the petitioner had construction sites at the following places:

1) Nehru Place, 2) Rajendra Place, and 3) Lodhi Road.

( 6 ) THE petitioner would contend that by reason of sub-section (5) of Section 1, Section 45a of the Act and Regulation 10b of the employees State Insurance (General) Regulations, 1950 (hereinafter called as "the Regulations"), unguided, unbridled and naked power has been delegated upon the executive, pursuant to or in furtherance whereof, the government had been vested with powers of specifying such establishment, as it may pick out, to be brought within the purview thereof.

( 7 ) ON 25. 5. 1987 efforts of ESI Corporation to cover one of the sites i. e. Centaur Hotel of the petitioner company, as "factory" were proved to be abortive due to intervention of ESI Court in petitioners favour. On 27. 11. 1989 after issuance of impugned notification dated 30. 9. 1988, the ESI Corporation again tried to cover establishment of the petitioner company as "factory". However, after exchange of correspondence between the petitioner and the Corporation, the corporation vide its letter dated 27. 11. 1989 admitted that the establishment of the petitioner company was not a factory and in fact ESI corporation was not going to cover it as factory either under Section 2 (12) or 1 (5) of the ESI Act. On 5. 1. 1998 the Insurance Inspector issued notice for inspection on 13. 1. 1998. The said Inspector was allegedly fully co-operated by the petitioner company in exercise of her functions and discharging of duties and no impediment or obstruction was created. The records of the petitioner company were shown to her. Correspondences were exchanged between the petitioner and the ESI Inspector and a Survey report dated 6. 2. 1998 was also prepared by the ESI Inspector. On 6. 3. 1998 despite the fact that the petitioner company did not come within the purview of coverage of the Act and the Scheme, ESI Corporation allotted a Code Number to it. Thereagainst, on 17. 3. 1998 petitioner company made representation whereby it objected to the said stand of the esi Corporation. Thereafter, on 13. 4. 1998 petitioner company also sent a legal notice to the Corporation. On 28. 9. 2001 allegedly, after sleeping for about two and half years, the ESI Corporation woke up and abruptly, without application of mind, requested the petitioner to submit the Returns of Contributions for Contribution period ended March 2001. This letter was suitably replied by the petitioner vide its letter dated 22/23. 11. 2001. On 4/8. 10. 2001, Deputy Director of ESI Corporation for the first time replied to petitioner s letter dated 17. 3.