JUDGMENT 1. Heard learned counsel for the parties. 2. Vide impugned judgment dated 26.06.2009, passed in W.P.(C) No. 7034 of 2005, learned Single Judge quashed the order of attachment of the demand, raised against the writ petitioner, on the part of Employees State Insurance Corporation (in short ''ESIC''), appellant herein and directed it to refund the amount attached together with statutory interest to the writ petitioner. During pendency of the appeal, the amount attached has been refunded to the writ petitioner by the ESIC. Application for exemption, under Section 87 of the Employees'' State Insurance Act, 1948, filed by respondent No.5 therein/ respondent No.3 herein, has been rejected by the State Government, as admitted by the said respondent through counter-affidavit filed on 24.04.2018. In terms of the undertaking given by this respondent before the Writ Court, it is under an obligation to pay the demanded amount to ESIC. 3. The writ petitioner, through its affidavit, filed in the present appeal, on 09.04.2018, has taken plea that the writ petitioner-company and respondent No.3-ISWP Limited are distinct entities in law. It, therefore, cannot be the principal employer within the meaning of Section 2(17) of the Employees'' State Insurance Act, 1948 from whom liability of the respondent No.3 can be recovered. 4. Learned counsel for the appellants has referred to the categorical statements of the writ petitioner, as contained in paragraph Nos. 11 & 12 of the writ petition, that it has taken over the management and control of ISWP Limited, respondent No.5 therein and the same was reopened after six years, in view of the Scheme sanctioned by BIFR for its rehabilitation. 5. He submits that in view of this stand of the writ petitioner, the finding of the learned Single Judge that it was not liable to meet the demand of ESIC as principal employer or even by the doctrine of "lifting the corporate veil" is not appropriate in the eye of law. 6. We have considered the submission of the parties in the light of the materials on record and also gone through the impugned judgment. We have also taken into account the subsequent developments after passing of the impugned judgment. As a matter of fact, the exemption application of respondent No.3 herein has been rejected by the State Government. 6. We have considered the submission of the parties in the light of the materials on record and also gone through the impugned judgment. We have also taken into account the subsequent developments after passing of the impugned judgment. As a matter of fact, the exemption application of respondent No.3 herein has been rejected by the State Government. It is, as such, liable to pay the demand raised by ESIC also in view of the undertaking given before the Writ Court. 7. Accordingly, we dispose of the instant appeal by holding that respondent No.3 would pay the demand raised by the appellantcorporation as expeditiously as possible. Since the demand raised by the ESIC is to be met by respondent No.3-ISWP Limited and the appellantcorporation has already refunded the amount attached to the writ petitioner, we do not consider it necessary to go into the correctness and legality of the judgment passed by the learned Single Judge on that count. However, corporation would not be liable to pay the statutory interest as directed to the writ petitioner in the light of Regulation 40 of the Employees'' State Insurance (General) Regulations, 1950. 8. Observations made hereinabove are for the purposes of disposal of the present appeal in the light of circumstances, noted above and would not be treated as a precedent. 9. Present appeal stands disposed of.