AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH,J. - (1.) CM No.8405-CII of 2016 Prayer in this application is for condonation of delay of 25 days in filing the appeal. For the reasons mentioned in the application which is duly supported by the affidavit of Shri Jatinder Kumar, Branch Manager, Employees' State Insurance Corporation, Panchkula, Haryana, the present application is allowed. Delay of 25 days in filing the appeal stands condoned. FAO No. 2321 of 2016 Challenge in this appeal is to the order dated 17.12.2015 passed by the Employees' Insurance Court, Gurgaon, whereby a petition preferred by the respondent-petitioner under Section 75 of the Employees' State Insurance Act, 1948, challenging the demand of contribution raised by letter dated 16.05.2002 under Section 45-A read with recovery letter dated 03.09.2002 issued by the appellant, has been allowed and the demand of amount sought to be charged as contribution under the Employees' State Insurance Act, 1948, from the respondent, has been set aside being illegal.
(2.) It is the contention of the counsel for the appellant that the Court below has not taken into consideration the fact that apart from 233 employees of the respondent-Company, who were shown to have been ultimately and proved to be drawing salary more than Rs.6,500/- at the time when the inspection was carried out of the premises of the respondent but qua the remaining employees, who were drawing wages upto Rs.6,500/-, no liberty has been granted to proceed against the respondent. He contends that the Court being the creation of the statute, should have taken that into consideration and granted liberty to the appellant to take appropriate steps in accordance with law qua those employees. He, however, very fairly states that the Court has granted liberty to the appellant to conduct proper inquiry and to collect proper and cogent evidence and notify afresh against the respondent in case it is found to be violating the provisions of the Employees' State Insurance Act, 1948.
(3.) I have considered the submissions made by learned counsel for the appellant and with his assistance, have gone through the impugned order.;