SANJIV KHANNA,J. - (1.) The appellant -M/s Lepakshi Emporium, located in Delhi, is a unit of A.P. Handicrafts Development Corporation Limited, Hyderabad.
(2.) The appellant had filed Writ Petition (C) No. 6103/2007 primarily impugning letters/orders dated 16th October, 2006 and 9th February, 2007 passed by the Employees State Insurance Corporation (ESIC). The writ petition was dismissed by the impugned order dated 11th
(3.) November, 2011, which records: - W.P.(C) 6103/2007 I have heard learned counsel for the parties. In this writ petition the petitioners are challenging the demand raised by the Employees State Insurance Corporation (ESIC) on account of their contributions under Sections 39 and 40 of the Employees State Insurance Act in respect of the period from September, 2004 to March 2005. Their plea is that they already stand exempted from any such contribution by the State of Andhra Pradesh and since the petitioner no.1 is only a Unit of respondent no.2 being run and maintained for all purposes including payment of salaries of the employees posted there by the Andhra Pradesh Handicrafts Development Corporation Ltd., they are not supposed to make any contribution or to file any returns. A perusal of the paper book shows that after petitioner no.1 had received a demand notice and then a show cause notice for non -compliance of its demand notice by the respondent (ESIC) they had approached, sometime in May, 2006, the Secretary (Industries and Commerce) Govt. of Andhra Pradesh, Hyderabad with a request for issuance of ESI exemption to the petitioner no.1. However, no exemption, as was sought for, appears to have been granted and in fact the petitioners have not even claimed that the same was granted. Therefore, there is no force in the stand taken by the petitioners that since petitioner no.2 has been exempted by the State of Andhra Pradesh from making any contributions under the ESIC Act to its unit at Delhi, namely petitioner no.1 also gets exempted. Therefore, I do not find any merit in this writ petition and the same is dismissed. The interim order earlier granted in favour of the petitioners staying the recovery of dues, which was impugned, also stands vacated." ;