P. SATHASIVAM, J.

Aggrieved by the notice of the respondent dated August 16, 1990, the petitioner has filed the above writ petition.

The case of the petitioner is briefly stated hereunder : The petitioner is a company registered under the Companies Act, 1956, and having a factory at Ennore, wherein it is engaged in the manufacture of medium duty commercial vehicles. It is covered by the Employees' State Insurance Act, 1948, (hereinafter referred to as "the Act"). The company has engaged various third parties and contractors for the purpose of carrying out various activities including repairs to buildings, plant and machinery and for the purpose of doing various repairs. Various activities including supply of materials, is entrusted to third parties who at times carry out work inside the factory premises of the company. The management has no method of knowing whether these contractors or third parties at all employ persons and if so, the number of persons who are in employment with such contractors or third parties. The bills of these third parties are paid in lumpsum upon presentation and they are not expected to give details of the labour element in the bills. The respondent issued a letter dated January 23, 1990, to the management in pursuance of the powers given to the respondent under the Act for summoning of records, etc. In this letter, in paragraph 3, the respondent sought for inspection of various documents in regard to "employees employed by the contractors". On the same day, the respondent also sent another letter wherein they wanted to have details in regard to entries in the general ledger, for the period 1980 to 1987 and they requested that the management should give details of segregated figures relating to costs of materials on the one hand, and labour charges of third parties, on the other.It is further stated that since the said proceedings were apparently under Section 45-A of the Act, it was pointed out that in so far as contract labour was concerned, all necessary records such as attendance registers, wages registers, cash books, general ledgers, income-tax statement, etc., could be available only with the said third parties and contractors. The petitioner-management by its letter dated February 20, 1990, enclosed the list of contracts and requested the respondents to summon those details from the said third parties, because the petitioner has no such powers nor was the management entitled at all to even look at these ledgers. Since most of the contractors were big companies, they had already been covered under the Act and this was also brought to the notice of the authorities. The authorities thereafter, took no steps either by writing to the management or issue notice to the contractors concerned. All of a sudden the petitioner has received the impugned order dated August 16, 1990, received on August 26, 1990, pointing out, inter alia, that the question of issuance of notice or summons by the respondent to the contractors, does not arise. The said direction is contrary to the decisions of this Court as well as the Apex Court. Accordingly, the respondent has failed to carry out the powers vested in them under the Act. In such circumstances, having no other effective remedy, the petitioner has approached this Court by way of the present writ petition.

The respondent filed a counter-affidavit disputing various averments made by the petitioner. It is stated that a communication dated January 23, 1990, was sent to the petitioner calling upon them to furnish certain particulars and the petitioner is obliged to furnish the information sought for by the respondent. As an employer, the petitioner is bound under the provisions of the Act to pay the contributions in respect of every employee, whether employed by him or through an immediate employer. All employees either working directly or through contractors are entitled to the benefits conferred under the Employees' State Insurance Act. Under Section 40 o