Judgment RAJESH BALIA, J. ( 1 ) HEARD learned counsel appearing for the parties. ( 2 ) THESE appeals are directed against the judgment, dated May 5, 1999 passed by the learned single judge dismissing the writ petition filed by All India I. T. D. C. Employees Union challenging the notification issued by Laxmi vilas Palace Hotel on January 30, 1997 (Annexure P7) informing its employees that in terms of the amendment made in the provisions of the Employees State Insurance Act vide notification, dated December 23, 1996 which became effective from January 1, 1997, its provisions shall be made applicable to those employees with effect from January 1, 1997 who were drawing monthly salary up to Rs. 6500. 00 which limit was earlier up to Rs. 3,000 and deduction on account of employees contribution towards the Employees State insurance was increased from 1. 5 per cent to 1. 75 per cent. So also, the employers contribution was increased from 4 per cent to 4. 75 per cent. With this notification, it was required of those employees who were drawing salary up to Rs. 6,500 to secure new insurance cards after fulfilling the requisite declaration. ( 3 ) THE principal-objection on behalf of the employees union to the said notification is that in view of the proviso to Section 1 (4), the provisions of the Act are not applicable to the respondent-employer company. However, the term used by the petitioner in the writ petition is to claim exemption. It is the case of the appellant/petitioner-union that the hotel in question is a Government of India undertaking and is State within the meaning of Article 12. Therefore, it being a State Hotel, the provisions of Section 1 (4) are not attracted so as to extend the applicability of the Act of 1948, to the employees of the said establishment, therefore, the contribution demanded from the employees to be deducted from the salary of the employees of the said establishment is not warranted. ( 4 ) APART from raising preliminary objection that the basic notification issued by the Union of India, dated December 23, 1996 has not been challenged by the petitioner which is the foundation for issuing the impugned notification by the management and without making U. O. I. as a party respondent, the petition is not maintainable. ( 4 ) APART from raising preliminary objection that the basic notification issued by the Union of India, dated December 23, 1996 has not been challenged by the petitioner which is the foundation for issuing the impugned notification by the management and without making U. O. I. as a party respondent, the petition is not maintainable. It has been contended by the respondents that the applicability of the Act has been extended vide notification, dated december 23, 1996, amending the provisions of the Act and, therefore, it is not entitled to any relief. It was also contended that the determination of question of applicability of the Act to any particular establishment depends upon determination of basic facts which could be done by the proper forum under the industrial Disputes Act and not by resorting to extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. The factum of i. T. D. C. being an instrumentality of the State was also denied. ( 5 ) THE plea of the respondents found favour of the learned single Judge and the Court held that if the applications for exemption or for determination of the applicability of the Act to the establishment in question is made before the appropriate Government or Employees insurance Court, it would take decision thereon but as the question depends upon determination of certain issues of the fact to make a reference to the Industrial Tribunal/labour Court, the court refused to exercise the extraordinary jurisdiction to determine the controversy by taking evidence and adjudicate the same as the court of original jurisdiction. Considering the fact that during the pendency of the writ petition, the petitioner was allowed not to pay the contribution under the interim orders of this court, which has not been deducted from their salary, the Court directed that the same should not be realised now because they were not availing the facility of E. S. I. during pendency of the writ petition. ( 6 ) AGGRIEVED with the aforesaid decision, two appeals have been filed. Appeal No. 742 of 1999 has been preferred by the employees union and the Appeal No. 1005 of 1999 is by the Employees State Insurance Corporation. ( 6 ) AGGRIEVED with the aforesaid decision, two appeals have been filed. Appeal No. 742 of 1999 has been preferred by the employees union and the Appeal No. 1005 of 1999 is by the Employees State Insurance Corporation. ( 7 ) THE Corporations appeal is to the extent that the learned single Judge, has directed to consider the waiver of realisation of contribution of the period during which the interim order passed by this Court has remained operative whereas the appeal by the employees union is on the merit of issue as noticed by us above. ( 8 ) IN the first instance, learned counsel contended that there is no forum for adjudication of the dispute as to the applicability of the Act to the establishment, therefore, there is no alternative remedy available under which this question can be decided and, therefore, the order under appeal cannot be sustained. There being no alternative remedy, the controversy ought to have been adjudicated by the learned single Judge. ( 9 ) THIS contention does not stand the test of scrutiny. Under the scheme of the Act of 1948, Chapter VI specifically deals with the adjudication of the disputes and claims. Section 74 envisages establishment of Employees insurance Courts for resolution of the disputes arising under the Act. Section 75 of the Act enlist the matters to be decided by the employees Insurance Court. Under Section 75 (l) (a), the question where any person is liable to pay the employees contribution is raised, it is a matter to be decided by the employees Insurance Court. Under Section 75 (l) (g), which is like a residuary clause invest the Insurance Court to decide any dispute between the principal employer and the corporation or between a principal employer and 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 other matter required to be or which may be decided by the Employees Insurance Court under this Act. Sub- section (2-B) requires that if any dispute is raised by a principal employer against a Corporation in respect of any contribution or any other dues, he can raise such dispute only on depositing with the Court 50 per cent of the amount as due from him as claimed by the Corporation. ( 10 ) CLAUSES (a) and (g) of Section 75 (1)are wide enough to cover a dispute about the applicability of the Act to any establishment which obligates an employer to deduct the ESI contribution from the emoluments payable to the employer for the purpose of depositing the same to the Corporation. This question is inherent in the dispute as to whether a person is liable to pay the contribution. The dispute can be raised by the employer as well as the employee so also any matter which can be subject-matter of the dispute as to the applicability of the Act to any particular employee or the principal employer, it falls to be determined by the Court established under section 74 in terms of Clause (g) of Section 75 (1 ). Section 75 (3) excludes the jurisdiction of the civil Court to entertain such matters which are to be decided by the Employees insurance Court or by a Medical Board or by a Medical Appeal Tribunal under the provisions of Section 75. ( 11 ) SECTION 81 of the Act enables the employees Insurance Court to submit any question of law for decision of High Court and on such reference being made, the High Court shall decide such questions and the matter shall then be decided by the Court in accordance with decision rendered by the High Court. Where the reference has not been submitted under section 81, an appeal lies to the High Court under Section 82 (2) if it involves substantial question of law. ( 12 ) THUS, it is apparent that under the scheme of the Act, not Only a remedy but an efficacious remedy has been provided for any dispute arising under the provisions of the Act including as to its applicability whether to the principal employer, immediate employer or the employees in general or individual. The questions may be raised by any of the persons affected by the provisions of the Act. ( 13 ) IN these circumstances, petitions under Article 226 are ordinarily not to be entertained. The questions may be raised by any of the persons affected by the provisions of the Act. ( 13 ) IN these circumstances, petitions under Article 226 are ordinarily not to be entertained. The principle has been stated as far as back by the Honble Supreme Court in case of Basant Kumar Sarkar and others v. Eagle rolling Mills, Ltd. and others reported in AIR 1964 SC 1260 : 1964-II-LLJ-105. The question of applicability of the Act to a particular establishment was raised by filing a writ petition before the Patna High Court. The Patna high Court refused to entertain the petition on the ground of availability of alternative remedy. It had been contended that the alternative remedy is by way of raising a dispute under the Industrial Disputes Act and it is in the discretion of the appropriate government to refer and cannot be considered as an efficacious remedy. The Supreme Court affirmed the judgment of High Court and said that:"without expressing any opinion, on the merits of the contention, we would confirm the finding of the High Court that the proper remedy which is available to the appellants to ventilate their grievances in respect of the said notices and circulars is to take recourse to Section 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act or seek relief, if possible, under Sections 74 and 75 of the Act". ( 14 ) IT was again stated by the Apex Court in the case of Employees State Insurance corporation v. R. K. Swamy and others, reported in AIR 1994 SC 1154 : 1994 (1) SCC 445 : 1994-I-LLJ-636. Considering the question of interpretation put by the government on the applicability of the Act to a particular establishment by issuing notification, the Court said that:"it is for the Courts to interpret the notification once it is issued. " ( 15 ) IT was a matter in which the question whether the advertising agencies are shops within the meaning of the Act has been decided by the Industrial Tribunal contrary to the opinion expressed by the Government. " ( 15 ) IT was a matter in which the question whether the advertising agencies are shops within the meaning of the Act has been decided by the Industrial Tribunal contrary to the opinion expressed by the Government. ( 16 ) IN view of the aforesaid, we are in agreement with the learned single Judge that in the present case, the question of applicability of the Act to a particular establishment or its ouster from its applicability under the provisions of the Act depends upon the determination of basic foundational facts and that has to be decided by the proper forum by raising dispute before it and not by invoking extraordinary jurisdiction. ( 17 ) IT would be appropriate to reproduce sub-section (4) of Section 1 of the Act, which is as under:" (4) It shall apply, in the first instance, to all factories (including factories belonging to the Government) other than seasonal factories. Provided that nothing contained in this sub-section shall apply to a factory or establishment belonging to or under the control of the Government whose employees are otherwise in receipt of benefits substantially similar or superior to the benefits provided under this Act. " ( 18 ) FROM the aforesaid, it is apparent that the Act in the first instance has been made applicable to all factories other than seasonal factories on its own force without any notification. The proviso was inserted by ESI (Amendment) Act No. 29 of 1989 with effect from October 20, 1989. Under the proviso, a factory or establishment belonging to or under the control of the Government whose employees are otherwise entitled to th e similar or superior benefits than provided under the act, were excluded from the applicability of the Act. Exhypothesi, all factories, including the one belonging to Government, were brought within the ambit of operation of the act. So also exhypothesi any factory or establishment which directly or indirectly under the control of Government, if its employees are in receipt of benefits substantial, similar or superior to the benefits provided under the Act stood excluded from the purview of the Act. So also exhypothesi any factory or establishment which directly or indirectly under the control of Government, if its employees are in receipt of benefits substantial, similar or superior to the benefits provided under the Act stood excluded from the purview of the Act. However, this automatic result of the provisions of the Act, the facts on the basis of which exhypothesi application of law or exclusion of the provisions of the Act could become effective remains to be determined by the human-agency and that has been provided under Chapter VI of the Act by establishing employees Insurance Court and the dispute as to whether a particular establishment is a factory or not; if it is factory whether belonging to or under the control of the Government and that if it is establishment belonging to or under the control of the Government, whether its employees are in receipt of benefits substantially, similar or superior to the benefits provided under the Act, has to be established by leading evidence, raising issues and determination of such facts by adjudicating body. ( 19 ) THE question, therefore, cannot be decided merely on the basis of assertion made in the writ petition by the appellant. This being the case, appropriate remedy for the petitioners if they chose to claim falling within the proviso to Section 1 (4), is to approach the employees Insurance Court under Section 75 and if so possible, to raise an industrial dispute by approaching appropriate Government and seek a reference to the Industrial Tribunal for adjudication. ( 20 ) THE petition filed by the union has, therefore, rightly not been entertained and the appeal should, therefore, fail and is accordingly dismissed. ( 21 ) SO far as the appeal filed by the corporation is concerned, we are of the opinion that the interest of all the parties will be safeguarded by making following directions:" (I) the deduction of the employees contribution will be made by the employer and along with the employees contribution employers contribution. shall be deposited with the ESI Corporation. (II) Such deposits shall be kept in a separate account by the ESI Corporation for a period of three months. shall be deposited with the ESI Corporation. (II) Such deposits shall be kept in a separate account by the ESI Corporation for a period of three months. (III) If within the said period of three months, any dispute is raised about the applicability of the Act to the establishment in question by the employer or employees before the appropriate forum, the said arrangement of regular deposits of the contribution and maintenance of separate account by the Corporation shall continue until the adjudication of that dispute by the said forum. (IV) However, if no such application is made within three months the amount of contribution of the employees and the employers so deposited with the corporation shall be appropriated to the normal fund in accordance with the law. (V) If any such dispute is raised and the petitioners succeed, the refund of the amount can appropriately be ordered at the end of such adjudication. " ( 22 ) AS far as the directions made by the learned single Judge about realisation of the contribution during the operation of the interim order is concerned, being in consonance with justice and equity, we are not inclined to interfere with the same. ( 23 ) WITH the above directions, these appeals stand disposed of with no orders as to costs. .