PRANAB KUMAR CHATTOPADHYAY, J. - (1.) The petitioner company runs a hospital and according to the petitioners, service rendered by the petitioner company is patient health care service and such service is not covered by any notification of the Employees State Insurance Act, 1948 (hereinafter referred to as ESI Act).
(2.) The respondent authorities however, arranged inspections of the units of the petitioner company. Considering the inspection report submitted by the Inspector, concerned authority of the respondent Employees State Insurance Corporation decided that both the units of the petitioner company should be treated as factory within the purview of Section 2(12) of the ESI Act w. e.f. October 02, 1997 and the decision of the said respondent authorities regarding coverage of the establishment of the petitioner company under ESI Act was communicated to the petitioner company by written communication dated November 23, 1998.
(3.) The respondent Deputy Regional Director by another written communication dated December 1, 1998 asked the petitioner company to submit declaration forms in respect of all its employees. The respondent authorities of the ESI Corporation also issued show- cause notice to the petitioner company on August 4, 1999 proposing determination and recovery of the amount of Rs. 4,78,228/- towards the contributions payable in respect of the employees of the establishment of the petitioner company.;