N.N.TIWARI, J. - (1.) In this writ application the petitioner has prayed for a direction on the respondent Nos. 2-4 to grant the petitioner an independent and separate code number under the provisions of Employees State Insurance Act, 1948, (hereinafter referred to as the 'said Act') and also for quashing the order dated October 17, 2006 (Annexure-7) whereby the petitioner has been directed to pay the employees' contribution to the tune of Rs. 31,92,750.00 for the period from November, 2004. The petitioner has further prayed for a direction on the State Government to consider the petitioner's claim for exemption from application of the provisions of the Act and to pass appropriate order under the provisions of the said Act. It has been stated that the petitioner is a registered contractor and has been running a canteen in the premises of M/s. Tata Motors Ltd. at Jamshedpur. The provisions of the said Act have been made applicable w.e.f. November 1, 2004. On coming to know about the applicability of the said Act, the petitioner applied for registration and allotment of Independent code number, before the respondent No. 2. The petitioner also filed an application before the respondent No. 1 praying exemption from the application of the provisions of the said Act. The grievance of the petitioner is that though it fulfills the required condition of the provisions of law, yet independent code number has not been allotted to the petitioner, rather a sub-code has been given to the petitioner under the code of Tata Motors Ltd. The State Government has also not passed any order either rejecting or allowing the petitioner's claim for exemption from application of the provisions of the said Act.
(2.) When the case is taken-up for hearing, learned JC to GF-I submitted that in spite of the letter sent to the concerned authorities, no instruction has been received by him till date and as such he has not been able to file any counter affidavit.
(3.) A counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of the respondent Nos. 2-5 (Employees State Insurance Corporation). It has been stated, inter alia, that the petitioner is a contractor under Tata Motors Ltd, Jamshedpur and as such a sub-code has been allotted and no independent code number has been allotted to the petitioner. It has been stated that the petitioner is liable to pay the employees' contribution to them, but the petitioner failed to pay the same and as such the demand has been made in accordance with law and there is no arbitrariness or illegality in issuing the impugned order of demand. It has been further stated, that the petitioner was liable to pay the employees' contribution from the very beginning, but the petitioner has been avoiding to pay the same and comply with the provisions of the said Act.;