JUDGMENT : This appeal has been filed against an order dated December 5, 2017 passed by the Learned Single Judge in WP No. 586 of 2017, whereby the Learned Single Judge was pleased to dismiss the writ petition. 2. The writ petitioner was directed against an order passed by the Learned Judge of the Employees' State Insurance Court dated August 16, 2017. 3. The occasion for passing the order by the Learned Judge of the Employees' State Insurance Court was the consideration of an application for temporary injunction dated 3rd April, 2017 filed by the appellant herein. By the order dated August 16, 2017, the Learned Judge of the Employees' State Insurance Court was pleased to hold that the appellant should not get any order of injunction as the balance of convenience was not in favour of the appellant under Section 45 A (proviso) of the E.S.I. Act. The said Court also held that no order of contribution would be passed by the Corporation in respect of the period beyond five years from the date on which the contribution shall become payable and if at that stage injunction was granted, the Corporation would be debarred to claim contribution and the claim raised subsequently would be time barred and the employees for whose protection the E.S.I. Act had been promulgated, would be deprived of medical and other benefits. 4. While passing the aforesaid order the Learned Judge of the E.S.I. Court took note of the fact that from the Form 01 (declaration form submitted by the appellant) there were 12 employees in the establishment on November 1, 1998. It was mentioned in the said document that the date of starting the establishment was July 6, 1993. The social security officer's primary inspection report dated January 7,1999 had also been submitted by the Corporation showing that he had found 12 employees employed from wages with effect from November 1, 1998. 5. Therefore, the Learned Judge held that prima facie it had appeared that the appellant was having special knowledge that the establishment was covered on and from 1st November, 1998. 6. After having been given opportunity of being heard on the point of coverage, the appellant questioned the period for which the coverage was applicable and also asked the authority as of what documents were to be supplied by Court. 7. 6. After having been given opportunity of being heard on the point of coverage, the appellant questioned the period for which the coverage was applicable and also asked the authority as of what documents were to be supplied by Court. 7. On perusal of the Order dated January 19, 2017 that is the order for determination of coverage it appears that the appellant despite having been given several chances did not attend the Court and/or contest the personal hearing, instead, the appellant issued letters in succession asking the authority as to which period and what documents were required to be produced at the personal hearing. On the other hand, the authority adjourned the matter on September 1, 2016, October 3, 2016 as on both the occasions none appeared on behalf of the employer /appellant and fixed it November 22, 2016 for the personal hearing as a final chance. On November 23, 2016 the employer failed to turn off the personal hearing and once again requested for other adjournment. The request of the employer was not acceptable and the order was passed. It may be pertinent to mention here that instead attending the hearing on the date fixed as mentioned hereinabove, letters were issued by theemployer making queries as to the period and documents that were required to be submitted at the time of hearing. 8. We find that this was a dilatory tactics adopted by the appellant to avoid payment of the coverage. The order dated May 17, 2016 passed by the Judge, E.S.I. Court in Tender Case No.40 of 2013 was amply clear on the points and/or queries raised by the appellant. 9. It is a settled principle of law that a person who seeks an injunction must come with clean hands. Moreover, the Learned Judge in the E.S.I. Court has also come to a prima facie finding as to the liability of the appellant to pay the amount and has discussed the balance of convenience and inconvenience elaborately. 10. Based on the factual findings before the Learned Single Judge, in this Hon'ble Court the Learned Single Judge has also come to a finding that there was no infirmity with the order rejecting the application for injunction. 10. Based on the factual findings before the Learned Single Judge, in this Hon'ble Court the Learned Single Judge has also come to a finding that there was no infirmity with the order rejecting the application for injunction. It is also settled that findings in an inter locutory application and/or applicability are tentative and as dates have been fixed for filing the statement by the Corporation and for further orders, the matter could be decided fully and finally. 11. In view of the above, if any assessment is made and deposit is made by the appellant, the same shall be without prejudiced to the rights and contentions of the appellant and shall abide by the final decision in the meantime. 12. Needless to point out that if any assessment is made towards the liability of the appellant/employer, it shall always be open for the appellant to challenge the same in accordance with law. The said application stands disposed of. There will be, however, no order as to costs. Urgent photostat certified copies of this order if applied for, be made available to the parties subject to compliance with all requisite formalities.