- (1.) PERMOD KOHLI, J. Petitioner is a Company incorporated under Indian Companies Act, 1956. The company had statutory obligation to contribute towards Employees State Insurance Scheme under the ESI Act. It is alleged that Company has provided its own medicare and has adequate infrastructure and thus Company is not liable to contribute towards the ESI fund for its employees. Company, accordingly, applied to the State Government for grant of exemption from contribution vide communication dated February 18, 2005. Exemption was granted to the petitioner- Company in respect to contribution for the period October 1,1996 to September 30, 1997 and from October 1,1997 to November 14, 2000 subject to certain conditions. Since there was no exemption thereafter, ESI raised a demand of Rs. 10630764/- (Rupees One Crore Six Lakhs Thirty Thousand Seven Hundred sixty four only) covering the period November 15, 2000 to December 31, 2004. It is admitted case of the parties that petitioner had applied for exemption for the period in question for which demand was raised. During the pendency of this writ application, respondents have issued order dated August 23, 2006 allowing exemption from contribution in favour of the petitioner for the period November 15, 2000 to December 31, 2004. This is the period for which demand had been earlier raised. In, view of the grant of exemption the demand becomes redundant. The writ application is rendered infructuous.
(2.) Mr. Rajiv Ranjan, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner has stated that by virtue of interim order petitioner was made to pay a sum of Rs. 25,00,000/- and the demand was stayed subject to this condition. Order dated March 22, 2006 clearly indicates that the respondents were restrained from taking any coercive steps if the petitioner deposits Rs. 25,00,000/-. Learned counsel accordingly seeks direction for refund of this amount. Learned counsel for the ESI has opposed the prayer taking refuge under Regulation 40 of the Employees' State Insurance (General) Regulations, 1950. Relevant extract of the aforesaid regulation reads as under: "40. Refund of contribution erroneously paid.-( 1) Any contribution paid by a person under the erroneous belief that the contributions were payable by that person under that Act may be refunded without interest by the Corporation to the person, if application to that effect is made in writing before the commencement of the benefit period corresponding to the contribution period in which contribution was paid."
(3.) This regulation is not attracted in the present case as a sum of Rs. 25,00,000/- was deposited by the petitioner-Company pursuant to the direction of this Court and since the demand has been rendered otiose, the amount deposited pursuant to the order of this Court and deposit being subject to outcome of writ application amount has to be refunded as there is no legal obligation to pay this amount. The State itself has granted exemption for the period in question without any such condition.;