PARIHAR, J. - (1.) PETITIONER has challenged the notification dated 9. 1. 1997 issued by respondent No. 1, the corporation informing the employees working in one of their units namely Hotel Jaipur Ashok, Jaipur that the employees getting salary upto Rs. 6500/- shall be covered under the provisions of Employees State Insurance Act and get benefits therein. The concerned employees were directed to fill up requisite forms at the earliest. This Court, while issuing notices, stayed the operation of the notification dated 9. 1. 1997 vide order dated 15. 4. 1997.
(2.) LEARNED counsel for the parties submitted that the controversy under the exact similar circumstances has already been decided at the main seat in case of All India, I. T. D. C. Employees Union vs. Employees State Insurance Corporation and Others, 1999 WLC (Raj.) U. C. Page 713. This Court while disposing the writ petition filed by the Association challenging the same notification issued in regard to the employees of Laxmi Vilas Palace Hotel, Jaipur, another unit of the respondent corporation, while not interfering with the impugned notification under writ jurisdiction, gave liberty to the concerned employees to seek remedy under the provisions of Employees State Insurance Act itself. The Employees State Insurance Corporation was also given liberty to pass necessary orders in regard to waiving the contribution for the period the interim order passed by the Court was in operation. The above judgment of learned Single Judge further came to be affirmed by the Division Bench in the case of All India I. T. D. C. Employees Union vs. Employees State Insurance Corporation and Others, 2001 (5) WLC (Raj.), Page 777. It may be mentioned here that against the order of the learned Single Judge, the respondent corporation had also filed an special appeal before the Division Bench challenging the directions issued by the learned Single Judge to the extent of realization of the contribution during the intervening when the interim order was in force. The Division Bench while dismissing the special appeal filed by the Association, however, made certain directions which are reproduced here as under:-      " (i) the deduction of the employees' contribution will be made by the employer and along with the employees contribution, employer's contribution shall be deposited with the ESI Corporation' (ii) Such deposits shall be kept in separate account by the ESI Corporation for a period of three months. (iii) If within the said period of three months, any dispute is raised about the applicability of the Act to the is raised about the applicability of the Act to the establishment in question by the employer or employees before the appropriate forum, the said arrangement of regular deposits of the contribution and maintenance of separate account by the Corporation shall continue until the adjudication of that dispute by the said forum, (iv) However, if no such application is made within three months, the amount of contribution of the employee's and the employer's so deposited with the Corporation shall be appropriated to the normal fund in accordance with the law' (v) If any such dispute is raised and the petitioners succeed, the refund of the amount can appropriately be ordered at the end of such adjudication. " The Division Bench, however, refused to interfere with the directions of learned Single Judge so far as realization of contribution during the operation of the interim order is concerned. Learned counsel for the respondent corporation submitted that in view of interim order passed by this court on 15. 4. 1997, the concerned employees of respondent No. 2 continued to get all medical benefits as provided by the management as per relevant Rules. It has further been submitted that in view of the interim order passed by this Court way back on 15. 4. 1997, the ESI Contribution has not been deducted so far. If directions issued by Division Bench as referred above are now followed, it would result in great financial hardship to not only the Corporation but the employees as well. After hearing counsel for the parties, I have carefully gone through the entire material on record, relevant provisions of the Act as also the judgment cited at bar. Having considered entire facts and circumstances as also in the interest of justice and further in view of judgment referred above, though no interference as prayed, is called for by this Court, however, the petitioner and the concerned employees shall be at liberty to seek remedy under the provisions of the ESI Act at appropriate stage. Even the employees as also employer can seek exemption from the concerned authorities under the provisions of ESI Act. Since admittedly, the employees have been granted medical benefits by the respondents corporation and no contribution as yet has been deducted by the employer in view of interim order passed by this Court, I deem it proper to direct the respondent corporation, the employer to deduct and deposit the ESI contribution from 1. 4. 2006 and the concerned employees shall also be entitled for medical benefits under the Act as per provisions therein as has already been referred above. If the parties are still aggrieved, they are always at liberty to seek proper remedy under the provisions of the ESI Act before appropriate forum. It is also expected from the authorities of the ESI Corporation not to initiate recovery or prosecution proceedings against the persons concerned for the period prior to 1. 4. 2006.
(3.) WITH the above observations and directions, the writ petition is disposed of accordingly. .;