Ajoy Nath Ray, J. - (1.) At the time of hearing of the application for extension of the interim order, which was granted from time to time only for limited periods, the writ application itself appeared to be ready for hearing and was taken up by consent of parties. It appears that ESI Contribution has not been paid by the writ petitioner company for an inordinately long period of 12 years from 1983 to 1995. The ESI Authorities also did not initiate any assessment recovery proceedings for the said large length of time.
(2.) It is only for the first time in or about the month of March, 1999 that notices were issued by the ESI Authorities pointing out to the writ petitioner company the defaults in the making of contribution and the defaults in the making of return. Although Mr. Sengupta appearing for the Union of Workers once submitted that the aggregate of these notices is around Rupees 62 lakhs, yet the exact computation was not given to Court by the parties.
(3.) Immediately on receipt of the notices, one T. Banerjee, General Manager of the first writ petitioner wrote to the ESI a one page letter. In that letter it was stated that because of frequent disruption in electricity there was dislocation of work and as such the Assistant Regional Director of the ESI could not be met or given any explanation. It was further stated in the letter that the writ petitioner has made an application before "Your Goodselves" meaning the ESI itself, for exemption from operation of the ESI Act, 1948. This part of the letter is hopelessly misinformed because the exemption granting authority is the State of West Bengal and not ESI.;