- (1.) THE facts of all these cases and the questions involved in them are similar. On the request of the learned counsel for the parties arguments were simultaneously heard at length at the admission stage for the final disposal of all these cases. As such they are being disposed of by this common order.
(2.) THE petitioners have filed these writ petitions with these allegations. Their factories and establishments are situated in the industrial area, Pali. On the advise of the authorities of the State Insurance Department, Pali and labouring under the mistake of law, they applied for the registration under the Employees' State Insurance Act, 1984 (hereinafter to be called 'the Act') and their factories and establishments were covered by the provisions of the Act with effect from the year 1977. Since then they started paying contribution in respect of their various employees and workmen to the respondent. The details of contribution paid from 1979 to 1983 are given in the charts. By notification No. F. 1 (3) LSG /74/ 35476-54 dated June 18, 1975 of the Government of Rajasthan in the department of Local Self Government, the industrial area was included in the limits of Pali Municipality, Pali. By Notification No. SO/118 dated December 24, 1983 of the Government of India, published in Gazette of India part II dated January 14, 1984, Chapters IV, V and VI of the Act were brought into force with effect from January 1, 1984 in the extended municipal limits of Pali wherein the factories and establishments of the petitioners are situated. The mistake was realised in the month of December, 1986 and after consultation with the lawyers, notice requesting for the refund of the amounts paid till December, 1983 were served. The said levy and collection of Employees' State Insurance Contribution as shown in the charts were wholly without jurisdiction, illegal and void. The petitioners are entitled to get back the said amounts with interest.
(3.) IN reply, it is admitted by the Employees' State Insurance Corporation that the factories and establishments of the petitioners were duly registered with effect from the year 1979, they started paying contribution since then and the said notification dated December 24, 1983 was duly issued. The remaining allegations of the petitioners were denied. It has further been averred that the petitioners' factories and establishments are duly covered by the earlier notification of the Central Government No. SRO/2857 dated November 23, 1956, the various employees of the petitioners had already obtained benefits under the Act, the petitioners should have applied to the Corporation for the refund of the amounts before the beginning of the first benefit period, they could have also applied to E. S. I. Court for the redressal of their grievance and could also file suit under Section 72, Indian Contract Act in the Civil Court and the writ petitions deserve to be dismissed on the ground of having alternative remedies.;