JUDGMENT : A. Pasayat J. 1. Petitioners call in question legality of determination made by Deputy Regional Director, Employees' State Insurance Corporation (in short, 'the Corporation') u/s 45A of the Employees' State Insurance Act, 1948 (in short, 'the Act'). 2. A preliminary objection was raised by Mr. P.P. Ray, learned counsel appearing for the Corporation stating that the petitioners have an effective statutory remedy available under the Statute, and therefore, this writ application should not be entertained. Mr. A.R. Dash, learned counsel for petitioners submitted that the dispute as involved in the case at hand is not covered by any of the provisions under the Act, and no appeal would lie. 3. Detailed reference to the factual aspects is unnecessary in view of the limited nature of controversy. The petitioners have been held liable to pay contribution in terms of the Act for various periods. Copies of the orders determining the amount have been annexed as Annexures 14 and 15 to the writ application. The said orders have been passed u/s 45A of the Act. Section 75 of the Act provides for the matters which are to be decided by Employees' Insurance Court (in short, 'the Court'), and Sub-section (1)(g) thereof reads as follows: "(g) Any other matter which is in dispute between a principal employer and the Corporation, or between a principal employer and an immediate employer, or between a person and the Corporation or between an employee and a principal or immediate employer, in respect of any contribution or benefit or other dues payable or recoverable under this Act, or any othermatter required to be or which may be decided by the Employees' Insurance Court under this Act." It deals with all matters which are in dispute between a principal employer and the Corporation or between a principal employer and an immediate employer, or between a person and the Corporation or between an employee and a principal or immediate employer, except those enumerated in the provision itself. 'Principal employer' is defined in Section 2(17) to mean inter alia, so far as a factory is concerned the owner or occupier of the factory, and includes the managing agent of such owner or occupier, the legal representative of a deceased owner or occupier, and where a person has been named as the Manager of the factory under the Factories Act, 1948, the person so named. A dispute between the principal employer and the Corporation as regards the former's liability determined u/s 45A is cognizable by the Court. A similar view was taken by this Court in Regional Director, ESIC Vs. Revenue Divisional Commissioner, Central Division and Others, and by the Karnataka High Court in Hedgde & Golay Ltd v. Employees' State Insurance Corporation 1981 L.I.C. 1277. 4. In that view of the matter, we do not think it necessary to go into the contentions raised by the petitioners as regards sustainability of the orders impugned. Let the petitioners file appeals within one month. If appeals are filed, within that period, those shall be admitted after condonation of delay for disposal on merits. In view of this order, no coercive action shall be taken till appeals are filed. It is open to petitioner to move the appellate authority after the appeals are filed in the matter of stay of recovery. If such a motion is made, same shall be considered in accordance with law. The writ application is disposed of accordingly. P.C. NAIK, J. 5. I agree.