ORDER V.K. Agarwal, J. 1. This appeal has been preferred under Section 82 of the Employees' State Insurance Act, 1948, (hereinafter referred to as 'Act' for short), is directed against the order dated October 16, 1998 in Case No. 7/96 E.S.I., by Presiding Officer, Labour Court No. 1, Bhopal, whereby the appellant has been directed to deposit 50% of the amount in accordance with Section 75(2B) of the 'Act'. 2. A dispute was raised by the appellant that the appellant is not covered under the provisions of the 'Act' as it is not a commercial establishment, and it docs not employ any person. It was averred that the appellant was a Cooperative Society registered under the Cooperative Societies Act, and it was therefore not liable to deposit any amount under Section 75(2B) of the 'Act'. Hence, it was prayed that the appellant be exempted from depositing 50% of the amount under the proviso to Section 75(2B) of the 'Act'. By the impugned order the appellant has been directed to deposit 50% of the amount. 3. Learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that the pleas of the appellant have not been properly appreciated by the Labour Court while passing the impugned order. He in fact did not get any relief despite his prayer under the said provision of law. It has been submitted that he should have been exempted from depositing 50% of the above amount in view of the picas raised by the appellant, but his picas have not been taken into consideration, in this regard. 4. The perusal of the impugned order indicates that the learned trial Court did not properly address itself to the contentions raised. In fact, if 50% of the amount was to be deposited, no order was necessary because that is the purport and intention of Section 75(2B) of the 'Act'. The contention of the appellant was that he should be exempted from depositing the amount in view of contentions raised by him. The learned lower Court could have exercised its discretion in the matter under proviso to Section 75(2B) of the 'Act'. It appears that the learned lower Court has failed to apply its mind, in this regard. 5. In the circumstances, the appeal is allowed. The learned lower Court could have exercised its discretion in the matter under proviso to Section 75(2B) of the 'Act'. It appears that the learned lower Court has failed to apply its mind, in this regard. 5. In the circumstances, the appeal is allowed. The Insurance Court is directed to address itself to the contentions of the appellant regarding the waiver or reduction of the amount regarding depositing the amount before entertaining the dispute. The Insurance Court will decide the above matter afresh after affording opportunity of hearing to both the parties. As submitted by the learned counsel for appellant, the Insurance Court would also pass appropriate orders regarding the request of appellant to permit it to operate the bank account held by it without any unnecessary delay. 6. With the above directions this appeal stands finally disposed of.