JUDGMENT : Harish Tandon, J. The Employees' State Insurance Corporation has challenged the order no. 8 dated 8th June 2017 passed by the Employees' Insurance Court, West Bengal, by which they are restrained from realising any amount on the basis of an order passed under section 85B of the Employees' State Insurance Act (hereinafter referred to as 'said Act') till the disposal of the main matter and further exempted the opposite party from depositing any amount required to be paid under Section 75(2B) of the said Act. 2. It appears that a proceeding was initiated against the petitioner, which culminated into an order under Section 45A of the said Act, determining the contribution of Rs. 63,866/- for the period of February 2011 to March 2012 and Rs. 30,665/- for April 2012 to September 2012. The said order was challenged before the Employees' Insurance Court by the opposite party and it was brought to the notice of the learned Judge that the petitioner Corporation has already withdrawn a sum of Rs. 1,15,798/- on the basis of an order of attachment directly from the bank account of the opposite party. 3. Subsequently, another notice was issued upon the petitioner claiming damages for the period from February 2011 to September 2012 on the plea of delayed payment. The said order is also challenged by the opposite party by filing an independent case before the Employees' Insurance Court. 4. It appears that the earlier case being Tender Case No. 42 of 2016, which was filed against the order passed under Section 45A of the said Act, an application for injunction was disposed of directing the Employees' State Insurance Corporation to withhold fifty per cent of claimed amount, i.e. Rs. 1,06,774/- and returned a sum of Rs. 62,411/- being the balance amount from the amount recovered by the petitioner Corporation in terms of the order of attachment directly from the bank account of the opposite party. 5. According to the opposite party, the subsequent order claiming damages is not an independent one but dependent upon the parent order passed under Section 45A of the said Act. It is, thus, submitted that if the Court has injuncted the petitioner Corporation from proceeding further, the subsequent proceeding for recovery of damages on account of delayed payment is bad, ineffective and be declared as non est. 6. It is, thus, submitted that if the Court has injuncted the petitioner Corporation from proceeding further, the subsequent proceeding for recovery of damages on account of delayed payment is bad, ineffective and be declared as non est. 6. There is no hesitation to say that the Court at the time of determining the application for temporary injunction makes its finding prima facie, which is mere tentative. The Court should refrain from making any observations, which would virtually non-suit either of the parties or may have a persuasive impact in the mind of the learned Judge at the time of final disposal. 7. Whether the order passed by the petitioner Corporation may ultimately be sustained by the Court or not is a question to be decided at the time of final disposal of the proceeding. If the statute provides fifty per cent of the claimed amount to be deposited for challenging the order before the Court, even though the power to exempt is provided under Section 75(2B) of the said Act, it is a duty of the Court to record the reasons and findings thereupon. 8. The manner, in which the impugned order is passed, in my opinion, virtually decides the main cause and in effect the subsequent proceeding being Tender Case No. 56 of 2016 would remain a paper proceeding. While passing the order to exempt the payment of a statutory amount the Court must strike the balance between the rights of the parties on the basis of the available materials on record and the core issues involved therein. 9. This Court, therefore, feels that the way the Court has exempted the deposit of the statutory amount under Section 75(2B) of the said Act is not proper and needs interference by this Court. However, this Court finds that despite the order passed in Tender Case No. 42 of 2016 the remaining amount of Rs. 62,411/- has not been returned to the petitioner. 10. This Court, therefore, directs the petitioner Corporation to retain fifty per cent of the damages assessed under Section 85B of the said Act and shall treat the same as sufficient compliance under Section 75(2B) of the said Act and the balance amount from Rs. 62,411/- shall be paid to the opposite party within two weeks from date. The other part of the order, by which the Court has injuncted the petitioner Corporation is un-interfered with. 11. 62,411/- shall be paid to the opposite party within two weeks from date. The other part of the order, by which the Court has injuncted the petitioner Corporation is un-interfered with. 11. The impugned order is modified to the extent as indicated above. 12. The Court below is requested to make efforts to dispose of the proceeding as expeditiously as possible preferably within four months from the date of communication of this order in accordance with law. 13. With these observations, the revisional application is disposed of. 14. There shall, however, be no order as to costs.