JUDGMENT : Manjula Chellur, J. Heard learned counsel for appellants as well as learned standing counsel for the first respondent. 2. The first respondent was the writ petitioner before the learned single Judge who approached the learned Judge seeking the following reliefs:- (i) to issue a writ of mandamus of any other writ, direction or order, directing the respondents 1 and 2 to refund the amount of Rs.160738-00 illegally recovered from the petitioner's account with interest from the date of recovery till date of refund. (ii) to declare the recovery of ESI contribution for the exempted period as illegal and against the provisions of the ESI Act. (iii) to grant such other reliefs as this Honourable Court may deem fit in the circumstances of the case. 3. According to the first respondent-writ petitioner, the society being a pioneer institution in the co-operative sector was functioning since 1928. The society was given several benefits as per the relevant provisions of the Kerala Co-operative Societies Act and Rules. The society in question is within the jurisdiction of the Kaduthuruthy Panchayat. The said Panchayat was brought into the coverage of ESI Scheme from 1.9.2002. The first respondent-petitioner claimed before the learned single Judge that though notification was brought into effect from 1.9.2002, the information received by them was only on 22.9.2003. Subsequently, in December 2003, it got registered with the ESI Corporation which is not in dispute. So far as the payment of contribution for ESI coverage for the employees of the first respondent society, they sought exemption for a period of one year between 1.9.2002 to 31.8.2003. The matter was pending with the Government and no decision was taken till 14.11.2006. 4. In the meanwhile, appellant Corporation started demanding the contribution of the members of the employees of the society and subsequently, they sought recovery of Rs. 1,60,738/- and also the interest from the second respondent Bank who was the garnishee of the account of the society. Subsequent to exemption order at Ext.P12, the first respondent society approached the Corporation for refund of the money on the ground that in spite of instructions from the Government not to recover the ESI contributions, they have recovered the amount and there was no justification for the said action. Subsequent to exemption order at Ext.P12, the first respondent society approached the Corporation for refund of the money on the ground that in spite of instructions from the Government not to recover the ESI contributions, they have recovered the amount and there was no justification for the said action. The learned single Judge, after referring to Exts.P7 and P12 opined that the Corporation had no right to recover the said money through the garnishee and it does not amount to payment of contribution by the first respondent society and therefore directed for the refund of the said amount. Aggrieved by the said judgment of the learned single Judge, the appellant Corporation is before us. 5. The learned counsel for the appellant Corporation brought to our notice the contents of Ext.P7 to insistently contend that there was no direction at any point of time by the Government not to collect the contributions of ESI from the first respondent society and even the tenor of Ext.P7 does not indicate so. Therefore, there is illegality or arbitrariness in the action of the society seeking for the payment of contribution through the garnishee, i.e., the second respondent Bank. 6. According to the learned counsel for the first respondent society who was the writ petitioner, clause 3 at exemption order dated 14.11.2006 indicates and it refers to only voluntary payment and not a payment through the garnishee. 7. We have gone through Ext.P7 letter which reads as under:- “I am directed to invite your attention to the references cited and request you that the application for exemption from the coverage of ESI Act submitted by the Kaduthuruthy Co-operative Rubber Marketing and Processing Society Ltd. No.1397 may be placed before the Regional Board for decision and all further steps in the case may be stayed till then. A reading of contents of Ext.P7 does not lead us to conclude that the Government has directed the Regional Director of ESI Corporation not to recover the money during the pendency of the application for exemption. On the other hand, Ext.P7 letter indicates or requests the Regional Director of ESI Corporation to place the exemption application submitted by the society before the Regional Board for a decision. On the other hand, Ext.P7 letter indicates or requests the Regional Director of ESI Corporation to place the exemption application submitted by the society before the Regional Board for a decision. Therefore, we cannot accept the contention of the first respondent society that there was a direction not to recover the amounts till the exemption application filed by the respondent society was considered by the concerned authority. 8. Then coming to relevant clauses, i.e., clauses 2 and 3 of Ext.P12 exemption order dated 14.11.2006, which reads as under: (2) Notwithstanding this exemption, the employees shall continue to receive such benefits under the said Act to which they might have become entitled to on the basis of the contributions paid prior to the date from which exemption granted by this notification operates: (3) The contribution for the exempted period if already paid shall not be refunded. A reading of these two clauses manifestly clears that in spite of exemption, if the employees had already contributed for the previous year, they shall continue to have the benefits under the Act. So far as Clause 3 is concerned, it says, if contributions for the exempted period was already paid, the same shall not be refunded. There is no qualitative statement whether the amount should have been paid voluntarily or other wise. In that view of the matter, in the absence of any direction in Ext.P7 by the Government not to recover the ESI contribution, if the garnishee has made the payment from the account of the first respondent-society, can it be called as a payment or not is the question. 9. When we look at the object with which the ESI Act was enacted, it was made for the benefit of the employees for various problems. Factually, according to the appellants Corporation, during the exempted period, disablement benefit was paid to one of the employees and sickness benefit was extended to some of the employees. A reading of clauses 2 and 3 definitely indicates that if the amounts are already paid, the ESI Corporation need not refund the said amount. As the amounts paid to the Corporation are made use for the various employees and in view of the purpose for which the Act was contemplated, we are of the opinion, the amount recovered through the garnishee is a payment as indicated at Clause 3 of Ext.P12 exemption order dated 14.11.2006. As the amounts paid to the Corporation are made use for the various employees and in view of the purpose for which the Act was contemplated, we are of the opinion, the amount recovered through the garnishee is a payment as indicated at Clause 3 of Ext.P12 exemption order dated 14.11.2006. Therefore, in view of the above discussions and reasonings, we are of the opinion that the judgment of the learned single Judge deserves to be set aside. Accordingly, we allow the appeal by setting aside the judgment of the learned single Judge.