JUDGMENT : S.A. Dharmadhikari, J. Heard on the question of admission and interim relief. By invoking the jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner has assailed the order dated 26.04.2017 (annexure P/1) passed in Case No. 16/2017 E.S.I by the E.S.I Court, Labour Court No. 2, Gwalior whereby the application seeking waiver of 50% dues as required to be deposited as per the provisions of Section 75(2-B) of the Employees State Insurance Act, 1948 (herein after referred to as the "Act") for raising a dispute has been rejected. 2. Bereft of unnecessary details, the facts which are necessary to be stated are that vide order dated 29.03.2017 the respondent herein have raised a demand of Rs. 1,39,81,571/- and the same is sought to be recovered along with interest of Rs. 2980/- per day w.e.f 29.03.2017 till the date of payment. 3. The petitioner has challenged the said demand by raising a dispute under Section 75(2-B) of the Act on the ground that no opportunity of hearing was afforded before raising the demand and imposing interest. The respondents had filed the reply to oppose the application. The respondents have raised a preliminary objection that the dispute was not maintainable without pre-deposit of 50% in terms of Section 75(2-B) of the Act. It has been pointed out the interest was levied as per the regulations. It is contended by the respondents that as per Section 75 (2-B) of the Act, no dispute can be raised before the ESI Court unless 50% of the amount due has been deposited with the Court, however the Court has the discretion to waive or reduce the amount for the reasons to be recorded in writing. The Court below has bestowed its anxious consideration on the application by applying its mind and has reduced the amount from 50% to 20% to be deposited. The discretion has been exercised while reducing the amount after recording reasons to that effect. It is further contended that the provision for deposing 50% of the amount demanded is a condition precedent and its waiver is an exception. 4. In these circumstances, no interference is called for by exercising the power under Article 227 of the Constitution of India and as such the petition deserves to be dismissed. 5. It is further contended that the provision for deposing 50% of the amount demanded is a condition precedent and its waiver is an exception. 4. In these circumstances, no interference is called for by exercising the power under Article 227 of the Constitution of India and as such the petition deserves to be dismissed. 5. After considering rival submissions in the light of the material available on record, it is seen that the provision of Section 75 (2-B) in this regard is quite clear. It is a measure provided for fulfilling aims and objects of the Act. The language is explicit and it is imperative for the employer to deposit 50% of the amount due from him before Court undertakes to decide the dispute. In the present case, the learned court below has rightly exercised its discretion by directing to deposit 20% of the original amount. The learned court below has considered the fact that there was strike in petitioner company for 2-3 months and there has been an agreement to make the payment of Rs. 1,50,000/- to about 250 employees by way of settlement and also looking to the fact that the petitioner/company is in financial difficulties, therefore, the amount has been reduced from 50% to 20%. 6. In these circumstances, the learned court below has not committed any jurisdictional error while passing the impugned order directing the petitioner to deposit 20% of Rs. 1,39,81,571/- which comes to Rs. 27,96,314.20/-. As such there is no reason to invoke the jurisdiction of this Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. 7. Accordingly, the petition stands dismissed.