JUDGMENT :

1. Heard Sri Vivek Ratan Agarwal, learned counsel for the appellant and Sri Brahmdev Dwivedi, learnd counsel for the respondent who due to physical ailment has joined through video conferencing.

''The reliefs sought in the aforesaid Appeal are that this Hon'ble Court may graciously be pleased to allow this Appeal, set aside the order dated 22.8.2003 passed by the Court below in ESI case No. 4 of 2003 with costs throughout, direct the Court below to decide the question raised by the appellant about the applicability of the Act upon it without insisting for depositing anything, and/or may grant such other and further relief which Hon'ble Court may deem just, fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the cases to meet the ends of justice.''

2. Facts: The appellant has challenged the order of the Commissioner challenging 1st order and then subsequent order on following grounds:

''A. Because as yet no final order under Section 45-A of the Act has been passed against the plaintiff/Appellant and as the amount mentioned in the show-cause noyice dated 20/23.6.2003 cannot be treated as amount due against the plaintiff/Appellant and as such the Court below was not justified in passing the impugned order directing the Plaintiff/Appellant to deposit 50% of the amount mentioned in show-cause notice dated 20/23.6.2003 and further holding that only thereafter the application for grant of temporary injunction and other pleas raised by the Plaintiff/Appellant would be considered.

B. Because in the facts and circumstances of the case, the provisions of Section 75(2B) of the Act are not applicable and as such the Court below acted illegality and with material irregularity in refusing to decide the application for grant of temporary injunction unless 50% of the amount shown in the show-cause notice dated 20/23.6.2003 is deposited by the Plaintiff/Appellant.''

3. Both the appeals requires to be allowed for the reasons as below.

4. The provisions of Section 75(g) plays a pivotal role as jurisdiction of Insurance Court is obliged to decide the issue as to whether any organisation is covered by Employee State Insurance Act,1948 ('Act' for short). Object of Act is to provide certain benefits to the employees and there is waive power to predeposit. All these aspects were to be decided by the Court. The Employees State Insurance Act though being beneficial peace of legislation:

''A plain reading of this Section provides that a dispute between the principal employer and Corporation in respect of any contribution or any other dues could not be raised by the principal employer in the 'Employees' Insurance Court only after depositing 50% of the amount claimed by the Corporation. The only relief is provided in the Proviso of the said section is that the Court may, for reasons to be recorded in writing, waive or reduce the amount to be deposited. As per the proviso recording reasons in writing would arise in a situation where the Court decides to waive or reduce the amount to be deposited. In case the Court is not waiving off or is not reducing the mandatory deposit of the amount of 50%, the Court is not required to record reasons in writing, D.L.F Power Ltd. vs. Regional Director, (2009) 123 FLR 964 (P&H) and ESI Corporation v. C.C. Santhakumar, (2007) 1 SCC 584: (2007) 1 SCC (L&S) 413.''

5. The Court has power to waive or reduce the amount where the dispute goes to the root of the dispute that the appellant is not liable, the jurisdiction and powers of the Court were with them. Obligations to adjudicate as per the judgment of Modi Steels Unit-A vs. ESI Court, (1984) 2 LLN 655, has been not adhered to.

6. We are not going into the merits of the matter as there is no adjudication that the appellant is under duty to pay the amount claimed. They have raised objections as their liability is also not there as they have their own rules which covers their employees which are much better than the Act. We are not going into this aspect.

7. We also hope that the