Judgment :- 1. The petitioner was the recipient of benefits under the Employees State Insurance Act 1948 (the Act for short) while employed as a working charge-man in the Transformers and Electrical, Kerala Ltd.. Angamaly. He met with an accident on December 29,1980 in respect of which he was given a temporary disablement benefit of Rs. 1200/- and a permanent disablement benefit of Rs. 4823.45 by the Employees' State Insurance Corporation, the first respondent, (hereinafter referred to as the Corporation). 2. Long afterwards, and on February 17,1983, he was intimated by the letter Ext. P1 from the Corporation that he was not an employee covered under S.2(9) of the Act on the date of the accident and that "ESI contributions" were not payable by him. As such, it was stated that he was not entitled to the payments made of temporary and permanent disablement benefits. The petitioner was therefore requested to refund the amount of Rs. 6023.45 within one month failing which revenue recovery action was threatened under S.70 of the Act without further notice. The petitioner thereupon made representations to his employer, wherein he stated that he bad approached the Corporation and availed the benefits on the advice of the employer and that the latter had suppressed the fact that his actual wages were more than Rs. 1000/-. The petitioner's further case was that "had not the Company represented the facts mistakenly" he would not have gone to the Corporation and availed the benefits, and therefore the entire benefit availed should be borne by the employer. Copy of the representation was sent to the Corporation also. There was no response to this representation. 3. The Corporation initiated proceedings under the Revenue Recovery Act for realisation of the amount. Notice Ext. P4 was issued under S.7 of the said Act. The petitioner thereupon filed this original petition. His contention is that the claim arises under S.70 and there should be an adjudication of the claim and of the liability by the Employees' Insurance Court (the Court for short) under S.75(2)(e) before any proceedings can be initiated for realisation of the amount under S.70(3). In other words the contention put forward is that the Corporation is bound to approach the Court for an adjudication of the claim as a condition precedent for recovery of the amount. 4. In other words the contention put forward is that the Corporation is bound to approach the Court for an adjudication of the claim as a condition precedent for recovery of the amount. 4. This contention is met by counsel for the Corporation with the plea that the corporation is vested with the right to decide the question of liability under S.70 and its enforceability is not dependent upon any order of Court. It is for the petitioner-employee, if he contests the liability, to apply to the Court and seek an adjudication if so advised. 5. I may at once point out that the petitioner has not so far questioned the claim for repayment made in Ext. P1. He has not at any time disputed the Corporation's allegations made in Ext. P1 that be was not an employee falling under S.2(9) of the Act and that therefore he was not entitled to the benefits given. Even in the Original Petition, he has no such case. He bad only thrown the blame on his employer about some alleged suppression of facts or misrepresentation regarding his wages, and therefore requesting them to reimburse the amount to the Corporation. There was therefore no issue which was required to be decided by the Court under S.75(2)(e). 6. Even otherwise, there is no merit in the petitioner's contention. S.70 of the Act provides that where any person has received any benefit or payment under the Act when he is not lawfully entitled thereto, he shall be liable to repay to the Corporation the value of the benefit of the amount of such payment. The amount recoverable under this section is also liable to be recovered as if it were an arrear of land revenue. 7. S.74 provides for the constitution of the Employees Insurance Court. Sub-section (I) of S.75 prescribes that questions and disputes of the nature enumerated therein shall be decided by the Court in accordance with the provisions of the Act. Sub-section (2) of this Section Jays down that claims of the nature described therein shall be decided by the Court. The claim under S.70 for the recovery of the value or amount of the benefits received by a person when be is not lawfully entitled thereto comes under sub-clause (e) of this sub-section. Sub-section (2) of this Section Jays down that claims of the nature described therein shall be decided by the Court. The claim under S.70 for the recovery of the value or amount of the benefits received by a person when be is not lawfully entitled thereto comes under sub-clause (e) of this sub-section. Sub-section (3) of the section bars the jurisdiction of Civil Courts in regard to the questions or disputes mentioned earlier and others. 8. There are various questions or disputes likely to arise in the course of administration of the Act whether a particular person is an employee, rate of wages or contribution, liability of the employer, question of coverage and such like. The Corporation has been established for the administration of the scheme of Employees' State Insurance. The Corporation has the statutory authority to exercise all those powers which are necessary for the proper and effective administration of the scheme of insurance. The Corporation is therefore the primary authority to determine the various questions which arise for decision in the course of its functioning under the Act. On such decisions being rendered in relation to these matters covered by S.45A, 68(1), 70(1), or 858(1). the amounts recoverable may be recovered as an arrear of land revenue. S.75 has to be read in the context of this scheme of the Act. S.75 is intended to provide a forum for the adjudication of disputes, questions or claims of the nature envisaged in sub-sections (1) and (2) thereof. Any determination by the Corporation is subject to challenge before the court under S.75. It is open to the Corporation itself in appropriate cases to approach the Court for the adjudication of any dispute, question or claim. Or the Corporation may proceed to recover the amount as an arrear of land revenue, on the basis of its determination and leave it to the person affected, if he is aggrieved, to move the Court. S.75(2) does not compel the Corporation to move the court whenever there is a claim which they have to enforce. As such, the proceedings initiated by the Corporation against the petitioner, under S.70(3) of the Act are not in any manner illegal. 9. S.75(2) does not compel the Corporation to move the court whenever there is a claim which they have to enforce. As such, the proceedings initiated by the Corporation against the petitioner, under S.70(3) of the Act are not in any manner illegal. 9. This court had occasion to consider a claim arising under S.45A in the decision in Regional Director, ESI Corporation v. Marikkar Engineers Ltd. 1981 KLT 609 (1982 Labour and Industrial Cases 140) and observed: "Having considered the scheme of the Act and the legislative intent of the provisions of S.4A, 45B and 75 of the Act, I do not feel persuaded to accept the argument of the counsel for the respondent-plaintiff that in a case like this where an order has been passed by the Corporation under S.4A. about which assuming that the respondent-plaintiff feels aggrieved, the Corporation is precluded from taking steps to recover the amount due under the order invoking the provisions of S.45A(2)and S.45B of the Act without referring the matter to the Insurance Court under S.75 merely because the Respondent Plaintiff has not accepted its correctness. The provisions of S.75 are meant to give an opportunity to the Corporation or the employer, as the case may be. to have an adjudication where the particular party feels aggrieved by a decision or order. In the case of . an order under S.45A. normally it could only be the employer that could feel aggrieved, and it is the employer who feels aggrieved that has to move the insurance court, because the order is to be made by the Corporation, but in a case where S.45A applies with respect to decision by the medical board, it might either be the Corporation or the employer that might feel aggrieved, in which case, the party that has to move the Insurance Court under S 75 would be the party that feels aggrieved by the Order. Essentially, therefore, it is the aggrieved party that has to approach the insurance court for its decision, not the party which wants to enforce the order of the decision." This court made reference inter alia, to the decisions of a Full Bench of the Karnataka High Court in Regional Director, ESI Corporation v. Fibre Bangalore (P) Ltd. (AIR 1980 Karnataka 86) and of the Madras High Court. in KCS Dhanushkodi Nadar and Sons v. ESI Corporation (1964 (1) LLJ 213) and M. S. Dhananjayan v. Regional Director, State Insurance Corporation (1972 (2) LLJ. 338), and held that it is for the employer, to whom the order under S.45A is not acceptable, to challenge its correctness in the court. In Dhanushkody Nadar's case. Jagadisan J. observes: "It is impossible to bold that the Corporation should in every case of non-payment of contribution, resort to the State Insurance Court and obtain an order for recovery of the amount" The Patna High Court in Shriram Bearings Ltd. v. Employees State Insurance Corporation (1977 Labour and Industrial Cases 1482) had occasion to consider whether an employer could approach the Court, under S.75 and not merely the Corporation. In that context it was observed: "There is nothing in sub-section (2) from which it can be held that once there is a repudiation by the person concerned, it is obligatory on the Corporation to file an application for adjudication of its claim. The forum appears to be available for both; the person who is said to be liable to pay, as well as to the Corporation who claims recovery of the contribution from such person" 10. These decisions primarily deal with questions under S.45A and the like. The position is not in any manner different in respect of a claim arising under S.70(1). S.75 is only an enabling provision for either the Corporation or the person affected to have the question, dispute or claim adjudicated. It is not necessary that every claim should be recovered only through the court, after obtaining an order therefrom regarding liability. 11. No other point is raised by the petitioner in this original petition. The original petition is therefore without merit and it is accordingly dismissed. There will be no order as to costs.