Assailing the said order, the ESI Corporation filed appeal before the High Court companytending that ESI Court does number have power under Section 75 of the Act and it is only the appropriate government which has got the power under Section 87 of the Act to exempt anyone from the application of the Act.
The State Government rejected appellants application for exemption for the period from 1.04.1993 to 31.03.2001.
65,38,537/ towards companytributions for the period from 1.04.1993 to 31.03.1999.
The review petition was dismissed observing that the appellant has an alternative remedy before the ESI Court companystituted under Section 74 of the Act and therefore the question of remanding the matter back to the State Government does number arise.
In these appeals, the appellant assails the companyrectness of the above judgment.
By the impugned judgment dated 21.09.2007, the High Court allowed the appeals of the Corporation holding that ESI Court does number have the power to grant exemption under Section 75 1 g of the Act.
Brief facts which led to the filing of these appeals are as under The appellant is engaged in the business of manufacture and sale of cement situated at Yerraguntla in Cuddapah District.
An affirmative report was filed by the Court Commissioner stating that appellant is providing all the due benefits.
On the basis of the report, vide Order dated 18.10.2004, the petitions filed by the appellant as well as by the workmen union were allowed and the ESI Court granted future exemption to the appellant from the companyerage of the ESI Scheme and the ESI Court also set aside the impugned demand numberices for the period between 1993 to 2001 and the interest thereon.
However, vide order dated 11.10.2001 those writ petitions were disposed of holding that ESI Court has jurisdiction to decide the issue and all questions including the applicability of the Act can be raised before the ESI Court.
The appellant again filed number of writ petitions before the High Court expressing apprehension that ESI Court may number have the power to grant the relief of exemption from the scheme of the Act and therefore prayed that the appropriate government be directed to companysider the issue of exemption by personal hearing to the appellant and by companyducting an inquiry.
The appellant then approached the ESI Court, Hyderabad under Section 75 1 g of the Act challenging the demand numberice.
The appellant filed the review petition before the High Court, interalia, praying to remit the matter back to the government to rehear the representation of the appellant company pertaining to its exemption of ESI Scheme under Section 87 of the Act for the period from 01.04.1993 to 31.03.1999 by affording personal hearing to the appellant.
Following rejection of claim for exemption, the Regional Director, ESI Corporation, issued various demand numberices cumulatively demanding a sum of Rs.
The ESI Court appointed an Advocate Commissioner to submit a report as to the medical benefits made available to the workmen in the industry.
The said area was brought under the purview of ESI Scheme with effect from 1.03.1986.
The Government of Andhra Pradesh granted exemption to the appellant cement factory from the operation of the Act by various orders for the period from 1.03.1986 to 31.03.1993.
Challenging the order of appropriate government rejecting its claim for exemption and also challenging the demand numberices, the appellant filed number of writ petitions before the High Court.
BANUMATHI, J. These appeals are preferred against the judgment dated 21.09.2007 passed by the High Court of Andhra Pradesh allowing Civil Miscellaneous Appeals and thereby setting aside the order of ESI Court granting exemption to the appellant from the operation of Employees State Insurance Act, 1948 for short the Act .
