Judgment K. S. Garewal, J. 1. The petitioners application under Sec.75 of the Employees state Insurance Act (for short "the Act") is pending before the Court empowered under the Act (Civil Judge, Senior Division, Sonepat) and is fixed for February 25, 2006. The petitioner has annexed a copy of the said application as Annexure P/2. Therein, the petitioner has prayed that the order passed against the petitioner under Sec.45-A of the Act be setaside and the recovery be stayed till the disposal of the petition. The petitioner has also filed an application for ad-interim injunction under order 39 Rule 1 and 2 read with Sec.151 of the Code of Civil Procedure for restraining the defendants from recovering the amount in question. 2. Copy of this application is annexed as Annexure P/3. Furthermore, the petitioner has also filed an application under Sec.75 (2) of the Act for waiver of deposit of 50% of the amount. Copy of this application is annexed as annexure P/3-A with this petition. On February 15, 2006, Employees State Insurance corporation, Faridabad, respondent No.1, has issued an order to recovery officer, respondent No.4, for recovery of about Rs.43.98 lacs from the petitioner-company. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that a mode of recovery in such cases is given in Sec.45-C of the Act and recovery can be made either by attachment and sale of the movable and immovable property, arrest of the employer and his detention in prison or appointment of a Receiver. It is obvious that the above modes are quite harsh. 4. According to learned counsel for the petitioner, the petitionercompany is ready and willing to tender the full amount of the dues and is possessed of two cheques bearing Nos.268074 and 268075 dated february 20, 2006, each amounting to Rs.21,99,458/- (Total Rs.43,98,916/-)drawn on Standard Chartered Bank, Gurgaon. However, the petitioner deserves a hearing of his applications for interim injunction and also for waiver but since these applications are pending before the learned Civil Judge (Senior division), Sonepat for February 25, 2006, the petitioner is without any protection of stay of recovery for the period between today and february 25, 2006. However, the petitioner deserves a hearing of his applications for interim injunction and also for waiver but since these applications are pending before the learned Civil Judge (Senior division), Sonepat for February 25, 2006, the petitioner is without any protection of stay of recovery for the period between today and february 25, 2006. The bonafides of the petitioner appear to be genuine because learned counsel has made an offer to deposit the entire amount but has simply prayed for a hearing of the said applications for stay and waiver, because the amount fixed by the respondents has not been accepted and is being questioned. 5. It seems to us that this petition is not maintainable at this stage as the matter is sub-judice before a Court of competent jurisdiction. Therefore, this writ petition is dismissed. However, the learned Civil judge (Senior Division) Sonepat is directed to entertain the interim stay application, which the petitioner shall be filing alongwith the cheques for the due amount and shall decide the applications for Stay and Waiver as soon as possible in accordance with law. 6. In case the petitioner files an application for advancing the date of hearing, the learned Judge shall consider that application in the light of the peculiar circumstances of this case. A copy of this order be given dasti to learned counsel for the petitioner under the signatures of Reader of this Court.