IMPORTANT POINT
.

HARINDER SINGH SIDHU, J.

This petition has been filed praying for quashing Section 45-AA of the Employees State Insurance Act, 1948 (hereinafter referred to as the 'ESI Act') in so far as it imposes a condition of pre-deposit of 25% of the demanded amount for entertaining the appeal. The petitioner has further prayed for quashing the order dt 30.12.2013 and demand notice dated 05.06.2014 (Annexures P-18 and P-21 respectively) demanding contribution for the period from October, 2009 to August 2010. Also impugned is the order dated 21.02.2014 of the Appellate Authority (Annexure P-20) declining to entertain the appeal for non deposit of 25% of the amount.

2. The petitioner has also prayed that the respondent authorities be directed to take a decision on the request of the petitioner – Company for grant of exemption from 01.10.2008 to 22.08.2010.

3. Briefly, the facts are that the petitioner Company which is in the business of manufacturing automobiles was initially set up as a Public Sector Undertaking in collaboration with M/s Suzuki Motors Corporation, Japan.

4. Vide notification dated 25.11.1986 issued by the Government of India, Ministry of Labour (respondent No. 1), the petitioner company was exempted from the operation of the ESI Act, retrospectively w.e.f., 01.08.1986 till 31st July, 1987. The exemption was regularly extended and continued till September 30, 2008. Before the expiry of the exemption period, the petitioner applied for extension for another year. This request was declined by respondent No. 1 on 23.01.2009 on the ground that the petitioner being no longer a Public Sector Undertaking/Government Company, the 'appropriate government' for grant of exemption would be the State of Haryana (respondent No.2)

5. The petitioner company thereafter immediately applied to respondent No. 2 on 16.02.2009 seeking exemption from 01.10.2008. After a long delay the exemption was granted for one year from the date of publication of the notification i.e., 23.08.2010. As the period from 01.10.2008 to 22.08.2010 remained uncovered, the petitioner requested that the exemption be extended for this period as well. On the matter being referred to it for opinion, the Central Government initially opined that after the amendment of Section 91-A of the ESI Act on 1.6.2010, exemption could only be granted prospectively. Respondent no.2 accordingly, vide letter dated 29.11.2011 rejected the case of the petitioner company for grant of exemption from 1.10.2008 to 22.8.2010. Thereafter the petitioner-company received a notice dated 14.8.2014 from respondent No.5 demanding contribution to the tune of Rs. 48, 81,884/- for the period from 1.10.2009 to 22.8.2010.

6. Meanwhile, on a representation from the petitioner the Central Government re-examined its earlier opinion and opined that as the case of the petitioner pertained to grant of exemption from 1.10.2008 to 22.8.2010, and the request, therefor, was made prior to the amendment of ESI Act on 1.6.2010, the State Govt. could grant exemption retrospectively. Based on this opinion, the petitioner company again requested the State Govt. for reconsideration of grant of exemption from 1.10.2008 to 22.8.2010. It is the case of the petitioner, that no decision on the said request has been taken or communicated to the petitioner.

7. Without waiting for the decision on exemption, the Deputy Director, ESIC, Sub-Regional office of the Employees State Insurance Corporation, Gurgaon (respondent No.5) passed order dated 30.12.2013 (Annexure P-18) demanding contribution of Rs. 48,38,844/- for the period October 2009 to August 2010.

8. Aggrieved against that order, the petitioner-company preferred appeal under Section 45- AA of the ESI Act. The Appellate Authority declined to entertain the appeal of the petitioner since 25% of the amount claimed was not deposited. The matter was referred to respondent No.5 i.e. Recovery Officer of ESI Corporation, who sent a demand notice dated 5.6.2014 (Annexure P-21) claimi