Vineet Saran, J. - (1.) The Employees State Insurance (ESI) Corporation recovered certain amount of Employees State Insurance from the Petitioner-U.P. State Road Transport Corporation (UPSRTC) even though the matter regarding grant of exemption to the petitioner-Corporation from the applicability of the ESI Act was pending with the State Government. It is such dispute between the two statutory Corporations, which has been brought before this Court.
(2.) The brief relevant facts are that the petitioner-Corporation has three wings; namely, workshop, operational and administrative. Treating its workshop wing to be a factory, the provisions of the Employees State Insurance Act were made applicable to the employees of such wing. The workers of the workshop wing had been agitating the matter for being exempted from the provisions of the Employees State Insurance Act. Such workers, as well as the petitioner-Corporation, had earlier filed writ petitions before this Court, in which initially interim orders had been granted but ultimately the said writ petitions were dismissed on 19.7.2001 with the direction that the petitioners therein may approach the ESI Court for redressal of their grievances. The petitioner-Corporation thereafter approached the ESI Court (respondent No. 3) for staying the recovery of any amount under the Employees State Insurance Act from the petitioner-Corporation. When the ESI Court did not pass any order, and in the meantime on 27.3.2003 the Recovery Officer under the Employees State Insurance Act issued recovery certificate directly to the Bank, this writ petition was filed, initially with the prayer for quashing the said recovery.
(3.) At the time of the filing of this writ petition, since the bank had already attached the amount of Rs. 84,90,902/-, on 7.4.2003 this Court directed that the amount so attached under the impugned recovery notice may not be withdrawn by the ESI Corporation. However, thereafter since the bank had already prepared the Bankers' cheque in favour of the ESI Corporation, on 16.4.2003, this Court modified the interim order, the operative portion of which is quoted below: The Bankers' cheque has been issued in favour of E.S.I. Corporation, the same may be encashed because it has been stated by the B.S.I. Corporation that before issuing bankers' cheque, the amount has been debited to the account of UPSRTC. The staying of encashment of the bankers' cheque mill not result any benefit by way of interest to the UPSRTC and on the other hand it will deprive the E.S.I. Corporation from interest. Therefore balance of convenience is in favour of the E.S.I. Corporation. It was in such circumstances that the amount that was to be recovered from the petitioner-Corporation was credited to the account of the respondent E.S.I. Corporation.;