JUDGMENT V. DHANAPALAN, J. 1. Heard Mr. Balan Haridas, learned counsel with Mr. T.S. Vijaya Raghavan, learned counsel appearing for the appellant/petitioner and Mrs. S. Jayakumari, learned counsel for the respondents. 2. This writ appeal is directed against the order dated 15.02.2011 made in W.P. No. 28001 of 2004 so as to consequently quash the order of the 2nd respondent in Ref. No. TN/RECY/CP-1/51-51641/CCR No. 27691 dated 14.09.2004. Learned Single Judge had dismissed the writ petition by holding that the issue raised by the writ petitioner has been squarely covered by the ruling of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of ESI Corporation vs. C.C. Santhakumar, (2007) 1 SCC 584 . For better appreciation, the operative portion of the said order is extracted hereunder:- "4. The main ground taken in the writ petition was that Proviso to Section 77(1)(b) of the Employees State Insurance Act provides for 5 years limitation in ordering recovery of the amount. Inasmuch as the demand has been made for the period from 12/93 to 4/95, it is clearly barred by limitation. 5. In the counter affidavit filed by the respondent ESI dated Nil (January 2005), a reference was made to a judgment of the Division Bench in W.A. Nos. 2177 and 2178 of 2000 dated 23.03.2001 stating that the limitation contained therein is for commencing of proceedings before the ESI Court and not for ordering recovery. 6. The issue raised by the petitioner has been squarely answered by the Supreme Court in ESI Corporation vs. C.C. Santhakumar, (2007) 1 SCC 584 . Hence, the challenge to the impugned notice is unsustainable. However, it is brought to the notice of this Court that the petitioner establishment had obtained an exemption in G.O. (D) Nos. 5 to 11 Labour and Employment Department from the application of the Act from 01.05.1995 to 31.03.2002 but the period referred to in the impugned notice do not cover the exemption period." 3. Learned counsel for the appellant/petitioner has submitted that findings rendered by the learned Single Judge were proceeded on an erroneous presumption that the writ petition has been filed only on the ground of limitation and Writ Court failed to note that even otherwise on equitable considerations, the appellant is entitled to the exemption. Learned counsel for the appellant/petitioner has submitted that findings rendered by the learned Single Judge were proceeded on an erroneous presumption that the writ petition has been filed only on the ground of limitation and Writ Court failed to note that even otherwise on equitable considerations, the appellant is entitled to the exemption. Learned Single Judge also failed to note that the appellant has been providing superior benefits ever since its incorporation including the period for which recovery is sought for and therefore, the order cannot be allowed to stand. 4. However, learned counsel for the appellant has fairly conceded that the appellant, without prejudice to his rights, has already paid the amount as demanded by the respondent Corporation, besides additionally informing that exemption has been granted for the period from 01.05.1995 to 31.03.2007. He has submitted that two orders have been passed by the Government in G.O. (D) No. 223 dated 18.07.2011 and G.O. (D) No. 343 dated 10.11.2011 respectively, rejecting the applications filed by the applicant for exemption. It is also stated that in respect of the period in question, viz. 1993 to 1995, covered by the writ petition, since the matter is pending before the learned Principal Labour Court, Chennai in O.P. No. 52 of 2012, the appellant may be permitted to workout its remedy before the Tribunal. 5. Mrs. S. Jayakumari, learned counsel for the respondent Corporation has vehemently contended that among other prayers, the main relief sought for in the pending petition in O.P. No. 52 of 2012 on the file of the Principal Labour Court, Chennai is for a declaration to declare that the medical benefits provided by the petitioner/appellant from the year 1993 to its employees are far more beneficial than what is provided by the 2nd respondent as confirmed by the order of the 1st respondent passed under Section 87 of the ESI Act for the period 01.05.1995 to 31.03.2007. Therefore, in the absence of any claim made by the appellant, no benefit for the relevant period can be extended and the said period is also not the factor to be taken into account. 6. We have heard the learned counsel on either side and perused the records available on record. 7. Therefore, in the absence of any claim made by the appellant, no benefit for the relevant period can be extended and the said period is also not the factor to be taken into account. 6. We have heard the learned counsel on either side and perused the records available on record. 7. It is seen that the present appeal has been filed against the order of the learned Single Judge of this Court, passed in W.P. No. 28001 of 2004, in and by which, the order/notice passed by the 2nd respondent, the Recovery Officer dated 14.09.2004, directing the petitioner to remit their dues for the period 12/93 to 4/95 together with interest, amounting to Rs. 1,42,087/- was under challenge. However, learned Single Judge dismissed the writ petition by holding the challenge to the impugned notice to be unsustainable, against which the appeal has been preferred. 8. However, looking into the overall circumstances and the claim made by the respondent Corporation, it is seen that the appellant has already paid the amount to the respondent Corporation, reserving its rights to go before the learned Principal Labour Court, Chennai. At the time of argument, learned counsel for the appellant has also submitted that the writ appeal may be disposed of, leaving rights of the parties to go before the ESI Court for appropriate remedy in the pending Original Petition. 9. Accordingly, recording the statement made the learned counsel for the appellant, the Writ Appeal is disposed of. However, it is open to the parties to work out their remedy before the learned Principal Labour Court, Chennai in the pending E.I.O.P. No. 52 of 2012 in accordance with law, by agitating all the grounds available with them. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.