D. K. SETH, J. ( 1 ) ON april 27, 1984 an order was passed by foe e. i. court rejecting the petitioner's application opposing the proposal for comprehensive inspection. This order has since been challenged in this writ petition. The said order dated april 27, 1984 passed in case no. 46 of 1982 by the employees' insurance court was not stayed. An interim order was granted in this petition permitting the respondents to make an inspection in terms of the order dated april 27, 1984 but any order that might be passed shall abide by the result of the rule. So far as the outstanding dues are concerned, the petitioners would be at liberty to approach the court for making payment by instalments. However, further proceedings of the criminal case pending before the metropolitan magistrate, 10th court calcutta is stayed till ei court finally determines the issues involved pending before it. Thus there was no interim order restraining the e. i. court from proceeding with the case. ( 2 ) THE learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the case is still pending. According to the counsel for the petitioner there was one inspection held and an order was passed determining the liability. Therefore there cannot be any direction and as such the order dated april 27, 1984 cannot be sustained. According to him, the respondents cannot be permitted to make roving or fishing enquiry. He contends that the question as to whether his employees in the office are connected with the business of the factory or not, that is to be determined. Therefore, there cannot be any further inspection only for that purpose once having held that there are certain materials on the basis of the inspection already made as defined under section 2 (9) of the employees' state insurance act, 1948. ( 3 ) MR. Subol kr. Moitra, learned counsel for the respondents, on the other hand, contends that this question is a question of fact which can be found out from the materials on the basis whereof such determination could be made. Therefore it is well within the competence of the esi authority to make inspection for the purpose of finding out as to whether the defence of the petitioner can be sustained or not. Therefore it is well within the competence of the esi authority to make inspection for the purpose of finding out as to whether the defence of the petitioner can be sustained or not. According to him, such particulars can be availed of only through an inspection as contemplated in section 45 of the esi act. Thus, there cannot be any embargo in making inspection. There is no bar provided in the said act for making a second inspection when some dispute is raised by the parties. Therefore, the order dated april 27, 1984 does not suffer from any infirmity or error of jurisdiction. Relying on the decision in the case of hyderabad asbestos cement products ltd. V. Employees insurance court and another, air 1978 sc 356 : 1978 (1) scc 194 : 1978-i-llj-181. Mr. Moitra contends that an employee may be working within the factory or outside or may be employed for administrative works or for production for the purpose of some finished goods but all such employees are included within the definition of 'employee' under section 39 of the act. Contribution is payable in respect of such employee. Section 38 does not mean that persons employed in the factory would come within the ambit and scope of the said provisions. Therefore, this petition should be dismissed. ( 4 ) LEARNED counsel for the petitioner, however, does not dispute this proposition but his only contention is that there cannot be any fishing or roving enquiry. After hearing the parties, it appears that so far as the legal proposition with regard to the impact of section 2 (9) of the esi act is concerned, there is no issue or dispute with regard thereto. The e. i. court is required to determine the said question on the basis of the materials available before it. If necessary, the e. i. court is not precluded from permitting the respondent to adduce evidence and produce such materials if necessary. Thus there cannot be any ground for saying that prayer for making inspection is incompetent. Section 45 permits making inspection wherever it is necessary on the conditions mentioned in clause (a) to (d) of sub-section (2) of section 45. It does not postulate that there cannot be any successive enquiry. It is a beneficial legislation and an employee cannot be deprived of such benefit. If necessary, it is open to the respondent to make comprehensive inspection. It does not postulate that there cannot be any successive enquiry. It is a beneficial legislation and an employee cannot be deprived of such benefit. If necessary, it is open to the respondent to make comprehensive inspection. ( 5 ) IN the circumstances, i do not find any infirmity in the order impugned. Be that as it may, the interim order had virtually disposed of the writ petition. There was no stay for passing appropriate order by the e. I. Court. It is still open to be challenged before the appropriate authority including this writ jurisdiction where all the said questions can be raised and gone into. Therefore, the petitioner is not remediless. ( 6 ) IN the circumstances, this writ petition is disposed of in terms of the direction or interim order already passed except that the question of comprehensive inspection which is decided against the petitioner, i am not inclined to interfere with the order dated april 27, 1984. In case, the matter is still pending, the e. i. court shall decide the same in accordance with law, after allowing esi authority to make comprehensive inspection within a period of six months from the date of communication of this order. ( 7 ) THERE will be no order as to costs. ( 8 ) URGENT xerox certified copy of this order, if applied or, be supplied within 7 days.