Reva Khetrapal, J.

1. The present appeal filed under Section 82 of the Employees? State Insurance Act, 1948 is directed against the judgment and order dated 15.02.2002 passed by the learned Senior Civil Judge, ESI Court, Delhi in ESI Petition No. 19/99, whereby it was held that the Appellant is covered by the Employees State Insurance Act, 1948 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act") and is not entitled to the relief claimed by it in the petition filed under Section 75 of the Act.

2. The facts leading to the filing of the petition under the aforesaid Act are that the Appellant-Company is a private limited company incorporated under the provisions of the Companies Act, 1956 with its registered office at 57, Nehru Place, Manjusha building, 5th Floor, New Delhi-110019. It was established in May, 1969 as a professional Architectural/Engineering Consultancy Organisation having no association with any contractor/manufacturer/supplier and renders comprehensive consultancy services starting from initial fact finding surveys, formulation and concept planning, right upto project management and supervision of various kinds of Engineering and Architectural services. It does not carry out any manufacturing activity nor it produces any goods for marketing and supply to any of its clients and customers nor it produces or supplies any goods to the public in general. It is claimed that the Appellant-Company is neither a "factory" nor an "establishment" nor a "shop" within the meaning of the ESI Act. The dominant feature of the application of the ESI Act for the purpose of definition of such application is relatable only to factories and establishments where either manufacturing process goes on or where the business of selling and purchase takes place as a commercial activity. In the case of the Appellant, the said features are claimed to be conspicuously absent and as such the employees of the Appellant are not employees within the meaning of the said Act. It is further claimed that the Appellant-Company is providing medical facilities to its employees which are far superior to those provided by the Respondents, and as such the provisions of the Act are not attracted to the Appellant-Company. It is asserted that the Appellant-Company being not aware of the existing position of the ESI Act, and the implications thereof, had allowed itself to be registered under the said Act. This was done under mistake, and on account of the said mistake it had also deposited an amount of ` 10,51,681/- to the ESI Corporation. The Appellant claims to be entitled to the refund of the said sum of ` 10,51,681/- and to be de-registered from the operation of the Act. The Respondents having refused to accede to the said prayer and having claimed a further contribution to the tune of ` 15,50,703/- for various periods, the Appellant was compelled to file a writ petition before this Court, being Civil Writ Petition 153/98, which was disposed of on 28.01.2000 by passing the following order:

28.1.2000

Present: Ms. Deepty Chowdhary for the Petitioner.

Mr. Harpreet Singh for the Respondent-4.

CW.153/98 & CM No. 2553/98 & CM 216/98

Rule.

With the consent of parties, the matter is taken up for final disposal at this stage today.

The Petitioner received show cause notice from Respondent No. 1/Employees State Insurance Corporation calling upon it to show cause as to why the Petitioner as one of the principal employers be not prosecuted for offence under Section 406 of Indian Penal Code for non-payment of contribution under Section 39 and 40 of E.S.I. Act. Petitioner replied stating that it was not the liability of the Petitioner to pay any such contribution. However the contention of the Petitioner was not accepted by E.S.I. authorities and demand notice was issued dated 4.11.1996 demanding a sum of ` 7,14,656.25 p for the period from 17.1.1995 to 31.1.1995 and 1.2.1995 to 30.6.1996. Subsequently further a sum of ` 3,37,025/- was also demanded. Petitioner made the payment of `