ARUN TANDON, J. - (1.) HEARD Sri Prakash Padia, Advocate on behalf of the petitioners and Sri P.K. Pandey, Advocate on behalf of respondent Nos. 1 to 3. It is not necessary to issue notice to respondent No. 4 in view of the order proposed to be passed today in the present writ petition.
(2.) INDIAN Oil Corporation Limited, Bareilly and its Chief Manager have filed this writ petition against the order passed by the Deputy Director, Employees' State Insurance Corporation, Kanpur dated 11th March, 2005 as also against the orders passed by the Recovery Officer, Employees' State Insurance Corporation, Kanpur 23rd March, 2005 and dated 12th April, 2005 whereby certain dues from the Indian Oil Corporation, Bareilly towards employees contribution has been demanded and further the I.C.I.C.I. Bank, Bareilly, wherein bank accounts of the Indian Oil Corporation, Bareilly has been maintained, has been directed to seize the said bank accounts towards recovery of the dues. On behalf of the petitioner, it is contended that the Government of India vide first notification dated 21st December, 1988 exempted the regular employees of the Indian Oil Corporation Limited from the provisions of Employees' State Insurance Act, 1948 (hereinafter referred to as the 1948 Act). The aforesaid notification was issued in exercise of powers under Section 88 read with Section 91(9) of the 1948 Act. The aforesaid exemption has been extended from time to time and the last notification issued by the Government of India in that regard is dated 30th April, 2004, whereby the exemption granted to the petitioners has been extended upto 30th September, 2006. In view of the aforesaid notification it is submitted that proceedings initiated for recovery of the dues under the provisions of 1948 Act against the petitioners, is wholly without jurisdiction.
(3.) LEAMED Counsel for the respondents submits that only regular employees of the Indian Oil Corporation Limited has been exempted under the provisions of aforesaid notification, therefore, the demand raised against the petitioners is legally justified, so far as it pertains to the employees other than the regular employees, who are working in the employment of the petitioners.;