JUDGMENT N.K. Patil, J.—This appeal by the appellant is arising out of the Order dated 5.7.2006 passed in ESI application No. 6/2002 by the Court of Employees' Insurance Court, Bangalore (hereinafter referred to as 'Insurance Court' for short). The only grievance of the appellant is that, respondents herein are liable to pay the contribution from April, 1989 to 15.4.1990 and it ought to have been paid in between 21.5.1989 to 215.1990. But knowing fully well, the respondents have not paid the said amount within time. In view of non-payment of contribution for the period from April, 1989 to 15th April, 1990, appellant issued notice calling upon the first respondent to pay the said amount. Instead of making payment of the same, 1st respondent submitted a letter stating that the payment of contribution were delayed since the workmen of the 2nd respondent factory had preferred a writ petition and obtained the stay order and that the respondents have also filed a writ petition and obtained the stay order against the notification enhancing the ceiling limit from 3000 to 6500. The said writ petition was disposed of and against that order, a writ appeal has been filed and the same has also been disposed of. Subsequently, another writ petition was filed and the said writ petition was disposed of, reserving liberty to the Corporation to initiate the proceedings for collecting the contribution from the respondents for the said period. Thereafter, the appellant after issuing notice and after affording opportunity to the respondents has passed the order exercising power under Section 85B of the E.S.I. Act, imposing a damage of Rs. 4,19,361 only for the period April, 1989 to 15.4.1990. The said order has been challenged by the respondents before the Employees Insurance Court at Bangalore in ESI Application No. 6/2002. The said application had come up for consideration before the Insurance Court on 5th July, 2006. The Insurance Court, after hearing both sides and after considering the material on record and after assigning valid reasons in para 18 to 23, has allowed the application filed by the respondents. Assailing the correctness of the said order, appellant felt necessitated to present this appeal. We have heard the learned Counsel for the appellant and learned Counsel for respondents. 2. Assailing the correctness of the said order, appellant felt necessitated to present this appeal. We have heard the learned Counsel for the appellant and learned Counsel for respondents. 2. The submission of the learned Counsel for the appellant is mat, respondents have committed a grave error, much less material irregularity in not making payment within the period i.e., 21.5.1989 to 21.5.1990 towards the contribution for the month of April, 89 to 15.4.1990 and actually, they have paid the same on 13.9.1996 contending that during the pendency of the petition filed by the employees there was an interim order in their favour and therefore, there is no delay as such on the part of the respondents. The same has been appreciated by the Insurance Court and allowed the application filed by the respondents, without appreciating the specific ground taken by the appellant. Therefore, learned Counsel for the appellant submitted that the order impugned is not sustainable and is liable to be set aside. 3. As against this, learned Counsel for respondents inter alia, contended and substantiated the impugned order passed by the Insurance Court. Further he submitted that, the Insurance Court after due consideration of the oral and documentary evidence available on file, has specifically recorded the finding of fact in para 21 holding that as per Ex. R-2 the period of dispute involved in this case is from 4/1989 to 15.4.1990 it ought to have been paid in between 21.5.1989 to 21.5.1990, but it is actually paid on 13.9.1996. Further, he submitted that, the Insurance Court relying on ILR 2003 Karnataka 4628 has passed the said order. Therefore, interference by this Court is not called for nor the appellant has made out any good grounds to entertain the relief sought in this appeal. 4. After hearing the learned Counsel for both the parties and after careful perusal of the impugned order passed by the Insurance Court, we do not find any error or material irregularity as such committed by the Insurance Court in allowing the application filed by the respondents. The Insurance Court has rightly held that as per Ex. R-2 dispute involved in this case is from 4/1989 for 15.4.1990 and respondents ought to have paid the same between 21.5.1989 to' 23.5.1990 but actually paid on 13.9.1996. The Insurance Court has rightly held that as per Ex. R-2 dispute involved in this case is from 4/1989 for 15.4.1990 and respondents ought to have paid the same between 21.5.1989 to' 23.5.1990 but actually paid on 13.9.1996. It is significant to note that, this Court in the case of Joint Director, ESI Corporation M/s. Riddhi Siddhi & Chemicals Ltd. ILR 2003, Karnataka has granted the stay till 6.11.1996 and after the disposal of the said matter respondents therein have paid the amount. In this case also, the respondents have paid the amount on 13.9.1996 and since the payment being made, the only point that arises for consideration is, is there any delay in payment? In this case, there was a stay granted by this Court and after disposal of the said matter, respondents have paid the said amount on 13.9.1996. Therefore, we do not find any justification or good grounds as such made out by the appellant to interfere in the order impugned passed by the Insurance Court. Hence, we decline to entertain the relief sought in this appeal. For the foregoing reasons, this appeal is dismissed as devoid of merits.