- (1.) RAKESH Tiwari, J. Heard Sri Ajay Rajendra, counsel for the peti tioner and Sri Rajesh Tiwari for the respondents.
(2.) PETITIONER No. 1 is a cooperative society registered under UP. Cooperative Societies Act, 1965 having its head office at Zila Parishad Bazar, Muzaffarnagar. The petitioner No. 2 is its Secretary whereas petitioner No. 3 is its employee. Contention of the counsel for petitioner is that petitioner is not covered by the provisions of Employees State Insurance Corporation Act, 1948 (hereinafter referred to as ESIC Act) as it is a cooperative society and does not engage any worker and hence it is not liable to pay ESI contribution in respect of its employ ees. It is stated that petitioner transacts the business of providing fertilizer to the farmers and for this purpose the work of fertilizer transportation has been given to a contractor namely M/s. Tomar Transport, 25-A, Nai Mandi, Muzaffarnagar, which owns trucks and engages workers for doing the work independently. The said contractor pays wages/salary to its employees for the work done by them and the petitioner has no control over employees of the contractor.
(3.) IT is further submitted that notices had been issued by the Employees State Insurance Corporation claiming contribution of 22 employees employed for the period 1. 3. 2004 to 30. 9. 2004 along with 15% interest, which has been dis puted by the petitioner on the aforesaid ground of non-applicability of the ESIC Act. The petitioner has also filed Suit No. 1 of 2007 challenging the recovery proceedings by the Corporation in pursuance of letter dated 4. 3. 2004, by which a demand for recovery of Rs. 42, 505/- was made. In the aforesaid suit, the peti tioner has filed an application for interim injunction and has deposited Rs. 20, 260/- on 1 7. 3. 2007 through treasury challan. It is also submitted that Civil Judge (S. D.), Meerut nominated as ESI Court, has also granted interim injunction restraining the respondents from making re covery of Rs. 40, 505/- from the petitioner on the basis of letter dated 4. 3. 2004 during pendency of the suit and if the subsequent recovery certificates are not challenged in writ petition, it would result in multiplicity of suits which the em ployer may be compelled to file.;