IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD PRESENT THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G.KRISHNA MOHAN REDDY C.M.A.No.3375 OF 2004 Date:25-02-2011 Between:- Nitco Roadways Limited, Rep.by its Director, Sri Rajan Nanda .. Appellant/petitioner And Employees’ State Insurance Corporation, rep. by its Deputy Director. .. Respondent/Respondent JUDGMENT:- This Civil Miscellaneous Appeal, under Section 82(2) of the Employees State Insurance Act, 1948 (for short, E.S.I.Act) is directed against the order dated 26-04-2004 passed in E.I.Case No.59 of 2000 on the file of Employees Insurance Court and Industrial Tribunal-1, Hyderabad. 2. Before the Tribunal, the case was filed under Section 75 (1)(g) of the Act praying to declare that the action of the respondent demanding a sum of Rs.1,81,718/- with interest of Rs.39,260/- towards contribution vide proceedings dated 26-05-2000 with effect from 03-11-1997 as illegal, unjust and contrary to law and in violation of the principles of natural justice. 3. Before the Tribunal, both the parties contested. 4. The Tribunal framed the following issues for trial: “1. Whether the petitioner-establishment is not liable to be covered under the ESI Act as it never engaged number of persons? 2. Whether the petitioner is not liable to pay any amount as demanded in the order dated 26-05-2000? 3. To what relief?” 5. For the appellant/petitioner, its Commercial Director was examined as P.W.1 and got marked Exs.P-1 to P-4 and for the respondent, three witnesses were examined as R.Ws.1 to 3 and got marked Exs.R-1 to R-10. 6. Taking into consideration the material available on record, the Tribunal dismissed the application. Therefore, aggrieved by the same, the present appeal has been preferred by the appellant/petitioner. 7. It is contended by the learned Counsel for the appellant/petitioner that his client wants to avail the benefits under the New Amnesty Scheme 2010 and accordingly, he made application on 24-02-2011 before the respondent-Corporation and the same has been pending and hence, he may be permitted to settle the matter out of Court. Learned Counsel for the respondent has contended that he has no objection to do so. 8. Therefore, it is to be considered as to whether the matter is to be disposed of accordingly. 9. When the learned counsel for the appellant/petitioner is making such representation, it is advisable to give an opportunity to the appellant/petitioner to settle the matter out of Court in the said lines. 10. Accordingly, the appeal is disposed of permitting the petitioner to settle the issue out of Court. There shall be no order as to costs. __________________________​_____ G.KRISHNA MOHAN REDDY, J 25th February, 2011 AMD