Judgment : 1. The writ petitioner is a proprietrix of a small scale industry, running under the name and style of Priya Plastics. According to her, the unit is a very small unit and only 5 persons were employed as contract labourers and they were paid wages on weekly basis. 2. While so, an order dated 28.03.2002 was passed by the first respondent under Section 45-A of the Employees' State Insurance Act, 1948 (for short ESI Act) to pay contribution amounting to Rs.1,51,605/- for the period from 04.10.1994 to 31.09.1999 with interest at the rate of 15%. Thereafter, a Notice of Demand, dated 20.11.2002 was sent for recovery of Rs.1,51,605/- towards contributions, Rs.1,12,896/- towards interest and Rs.25/- towards cost and charges. In total, the demand was for Rs.2,64,526/-. 3. The petitioner had sent representations dated 25.10.2002 and 05.12.2002 to drop the proceedings. According to her, EST Act is not applicable to the petitioner unit and she is not liable to pay contributions. Thereafter, the petitioner also sent further letters dated 29.01.2004 and 09.08.2004 stating that she had undergone major surgery and could not travel and requested to drop the proceedings. The petitioner made a similar request once again on 05.04.2008. 4. Thereafter, the petitioner filed E.S.I.O.P. under Section 75(1)(g) of the ESI Act before the ESI Court on the ground that her unit will not come under the purview of the ESI Act. Since there was a delay of 1730 days in approaching the Court, the petitioner filed an application in CMP No.6 of 2010 in unnumbered E.I.O.P under Section 5 of the Limitation Act to condone the said delay. 5. Section 77(1-A) provides for period of limitation of three years for questioning the order that was passed under Section 45-A of the Act. Obviously, the petitioner approached the ESI Court belatedly, questioning the order dated 28.03.2002 passed under Section 45-A of the Act. The second respondent, by order dated 09.10.2012 rejected the application in CMP No.6 of 2010 in unnumbered E.S.I. O.P. on the ground that sufficient reasons were not given to condone the delay. 6. The petitioner has now produced various materials, particularly, the letters written by her stating that she was not liable to pay contribution under the ESI Act and that she had underwent major surgery. However, those letters were not produced before the second respondent. 7. 6. The petitioner has now produced various materials, particularly, the letters written by her stating that she was not liable to pay contribution under the ESI Act and that she had underwent major surgery. However, those letters were not produced before the second respondent. 7. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the matter has to be adjudicated on merits and hence, the same may be remanded back to the second respondent to decide the issue based on the materials that are now placed before this Court, as the petitioner is questioning the very coverage of the Act. It is further stated that the petitioner is willing to deposit any amount that is fair and reasonable to condone the delay. It is also submitted that in the event the ESI Corporation succeeds in E.S.I.O.P., they can take the amount deposited by the petitioner. In respect of limitation, the learned counsel for the petitioner relied on a judgment of the Karnataka High Court reported in 2009-III-LLJ-575 (Kant) [Employees' State Insurance Corporation, Bangalore v. Ananthapadmanabha Mills, Mangalore]. 8. Per contra, the learned counsel for the ESI Corporation has strenuously contended that the petitioner has slept over the matter for years together and she has approached the Court belatedly after so many years. The petitioner did not give adequate reasons to condone the delay. Hence, there is no infirmity in the order passed by the ESI Court. The learned counsel further submitted that as on 20.11.2012, the petitioner is liable to pay Rs.2,64,526/- and as on today, the petitioner is liable to play Rs.7,01,431/-. The aforesaid amount represents the Contributions and Interest part alone. It is further stated that the ESI Corporation has not given the calculation relating to damages that are payable by the petitioner due to the delayed contribution. 9. Heard both sides. 10. In this case, the first respondent ESI Corporation passed an order on 28.03.2002 under Section 45-A of the ESI Act directing the writ petitioner to remit the contribution for its workman for the period from 04.10.1994 to 31.09.1999 amounting to Rs.1,51,605/-. Since the same was not paid, a Notice of Demand, dated 20.11.2002 was sent for recovery of Rs.1,51,605/- towards contributions, Rs.1,12,896/- towards interest and Rs.25/- towards cost and charges. In total, the demand was for Rs.2,64,526/-. 11. Since the same was not paid, a Notice of Demand, dated 20.11.2002 was sent for recovery of Rs.1,51,605/- towards contributions, Rs.1,12,896/- towards interest and Rs.25/- towards cost and charges. In total, the demand was for Rs.2,64,526/-. 11. The petitioner, instead of approaching the ESI Court under Section 75 of the Act, within the limitation period has chosen to write letters stating that she is not liable to pay and she had undergone major surgery and that she could not travel. Even those letters were not produced before the ESI Court to explain the delay and those letters are now produced before this Court. 12. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case and taking into account the letters produced by the petitioner and also taking into account the judgment relied on by the learned counsel for the petitioner, I am of the view that the matter should be remanded to the ESI Court for fresh consideration. 13. Accordingly, the order dated 09.10.2012 passed by the second respondent is set aside, on condition the petitioner deposits Rs.7,01,431/- before the Labour Court, within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order and thereafter, the Labour court is directed to number the E.S.I.O.P and decide the same on merits and in accordance with law. If the petitioner fails to deposit the said amount within the time stipulated, the order dated 09.10.2012 of the Labour Court dismissing the condone delay application is confirmed.