( 1 ) THIS matter arises under the Employees State Insurance Act, 1948, hereinafter called the Act. The petitioners are a partnership firm carrying on the business of manufacturing oil from copra. The provisions of Chapters IV, V and VI of the Act have been made applicable to the areas falling within the limits of mangalore Municiplity, where the oil mills of the petitioners are situated. ( 2 ) THE Regional Director, Employees State Insurance Corporation, respondent 1, issued a letter dt. 15117-1-1969 to the petitioners requesting payment of an amount of Rs. 517 towards the employers' special contribution and a further sum of Rs. 516-54 towards the employees' contribution, for the period from 1-9-1967 to 18-11-1968- in respect of the contract labour engaged to dry copra pieces in the drying yard of the petitioners' Mills. On receipt of the said letter, the petitioners sent a letter dt. 20-3-1969 denying their liability to pay contribution in respect of the alleged contract labour. On 29-4-1969, the first respondent sent a communication to the petitioners informing them that since the said workers were employed by the petitioners on wages in connection with the work of their factory, the said workers are covered under the Act and contribution in respect of them is payable irrespective of whether they work for a day or two. Thereafter, although the petitioners disputed their liability to pay contribution in respect of the alleged contract labour, the first respondent made an application before the second respondent for recovery of the aforesaid sums as arrears of land revenue. Thereupon, the petitioners have approached this court for relief under Art. 226 of the Constitution. ( 3 ) IT was contended by Sri Tukaram Pai that the demand made by the first respondent not only contravenes the rules of natural justice but it is also made without jurisdiction. In support of his latter contention, the learned Counsel relied on the provisions of S. 75 (1) (g) of the Act, which provides that if any question or dispute arises as to any matter which is in dispute between a principal employer and the Corporation, such a question or dispue shall be decided by the Employees' Insurance Court in accordance with the provisions of the Act. Since the petitioners have disputed their liability to pay contribution in respect of the alleged contract labour, ihe learned Counsel urged that the respondent was incompetent to decide that dispute and make a demand straightaway. The contention urged by the learned Counsel, in our opinion, is well founded and the action of the first respondent cannot be supported It was not shown by the learned Counsel for the first respondent as to how the first respondent could have made a demand straightaway when the petitioners have disputed their liability to make contribution under the Act in respect of the alleged contract labour. The question or dispute should have been referred by the first respondent to be decided by the Employees' insurance Court in accordance with the provisions of the Act. ( 4 ) IN that view, we allow this writ petition and issue a writ in the nature of mandamus directing the Respondents to forbear from recovering the disputed contributions for the period 1-9-1967 to 18-11-1968 on the basis of the first respondent's letter dt. 15/17-1-1969'ext. A without obtaining a proper adjudication as to the liability of the petitioners from the Employees' insurance Court. ( 5 ) IT is ordered accordingly. No costs. --- *** --- .