THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE L.NARASIMHA REDDY C.M.A.No.3262 of 1999 JUDGMENT: The 1st respondent is an Industrial Establishment covered by the provisions of the Employees’ State Insurance Act (for short ‘the Act’), with effect from 10.06.1987. The appellant issued notice, dated 18.10.1994, demanding a sum of Rs.2,03,387/- being the dues of contribution from the date of coverage. Challenging the same, the respondents filed O.P.No.82 of 1995 before the Court of Principal Senior Civil Judge, Visakhapatnam, under Section 75 of the Act. The appellant opposed the O.P. During the pendency of the O.P., the Government issued G.O.Ms.No.1323, dated 28.07.1995, exempting the 1st respondent from the purview of the Act, with effect from the date of inception. Taking note of the same, the trial Court allowed the O.P. and has set aside the notice, dated 18.10.1994. The same is challenged in this C.M.A., filed under Section 82(2) of the Act. Sri B.G.Ravindra Reddy, learned counsel for the appellant, submits that Section 87 of the Act, empowers the Government to grant exemption, only for one year at a time and there was absolutely no basis for granting exemption in favour of the 1st respondent from the date of its inception. He contends that when the G.O. itself is contrary to the specific provisions of the Act, there was no basis for the trial Court in setting aside the notice. None appears for the 1st respondent. It is endorsed that the 2nd respondent is not a necessary party. The only question that arises for consideration in this appeal is, as to whether the trial Court was justified in setting aside the notice, on the basis of G.O.Ms.No.1323 dated 28.07.1995 issued by the Government. Section 85 of the Act confers power upon the Government to grant exemption, in favour an Industrial Establishment, from the provisions of the Act. It is true, that exemption can be only for a period not exceeding one year, and if any further exemption is to be granted, the renewal must also be not exceeding, for a period of one year each time. The issuance of G.O., enblock for a period, does not accord with the provisions of Section 87 of the Act. All the same, the appellant could have challenged the G.O., if it feels aggrieved by it. As long as the G.O. stands, the trial Court has no alternative, except to abide by it. Therefore, the C.M.A. is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. ______________________ L.NARASIMHA REDDY, J Dated:22.07.2010 GJ