N.N.TIWARI, J. - (1.) IN this writ application the petitioner has prayed for quashing the demand notice dated 22.5.2006 (Annexure - 9) issued by the Employees State Insurance Corporation for recovery of its contribution for the period from June, 2005 to March, 2006.
(2.) IT has been stated that the petitioner has applied for exemption under the provisions of Sec. 87 of the Employees State Insurance Corporation Act on the ground that the petitioner -Company is providing better medical and other ancillary benefits to its employees which is far in excess and better than that offered by the employees of the State Insurance Corporation. It has been submitted that in the similar situation earlier exemption has been given to M/s. Tata Iron & Steel Company Limited and this Company has now been taken over by the TATA. It was stated that during the pendency of the said petition for exemption before the State Government, the respondents -Employee, State Insurance Corporation has issued the said impugned demand notice dated 22.5.2006. It has been stated that on receipt of the said impugned demand notice the petitioner filed a representation before the Deputy Director, Employees State Insurance Corporation requesting him to keep the impugned demand in abeyance till disposal of the exemption application by the concerned authorities. It has been stated that in stead spite of disposing of the said petition, the respondents are insisting for payment of the amount of the impugned demand notice. It has been submitted that against non -payment, penal action can be taken, but the respondents have not passed any speaking order on the petitioner 'ssaid representation. Learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent Nos. 2 -4 submitted that the petitioner is liable to pay the amount of the said demand notice dated 22.5.2006 as till date there is no order of exemption. It has been stated that the demand notice has been issued under the provisions of law and that there is no illegality or infirmity in the impugned demand notice.
(3.) LEARNED Counsel for the petitioner referred to and relied on a decision of this Court In M/s. Tata Iron and Steel Co. Ltd. V/s. State of Bihar and Ors. dated 10.7.2006 in WP (C) 2853 of 2001 (see 2006 (4) JCR 327 (Jhr)) and submitted that the demand of the amount from the employees during the pendency of the petition for exemption is not justified. It has been submitted that considering the same, the demand notice in the said case was quashing by this Court.;