Hindustan Organic Chemicals … vs Union Of India on 31 March, 2009

       

  

  

 
 
  IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

WP(C).No. 10245 of 2009(A)


1. HINDUSTAN ORGANIC CHEMICALS WORKERS
                      ...  Petitioner
2. HINDUSTAN ORGANIC STAFF AND WORKERS
3. HINDUSTAN ORGANIC CHEMICALS EMPLOYEES

                        Vs



1. UNION OF INDIA, REPRESENTED BY THE
                       ...       Respondent

2. EMPLOYEES STATE INSURANCE CORPORATION,

3. HINDUSTAN ORGANIC CHEMICALS,

                For Petitioner  :SRI.M.RAJASEKHARAN NAYAR

                For Respondent  : No Appearance

The Hon'ble MR. Justice ANTONY DOMINIC

 Dated :31/03/2009

 O R D E R
                      ANTONY DOMINIC, J.
                    ================
                W.P.(C) NO. 10245 OF 2009 (A)
                =====================

            Dated this the 31st day of March, 2009

                         J U D G M E N T

Petitioners represent the employees of the 3rd respondent, a

Government Company. In this writ petition, they claim

exemption from the provisions of the Employees State Insurance

Act.

2. Going by the records produced, it would appear that by

different orders passed periodically, exemption was enjoyed by

the 3rd respondent and its employees till 30/9/2008 and the last

order of exemption is Ext.P1. It would appear that claiming

exemption for the subsequent period, both the petitioners and the

3rd respondent have filed Ext.P5 and the application is pending

consideration of the 1st respondent. In the meanwhile, taking

advantage of the situation that as at present no exemption is

granted, the 2nd respondent is pressurising the 3rd respondent for

the implementation of the provisions of the Employees State

Insurance Act and therefore this writ petition is filed.

3. Admittedly, Ext.P5 application for exemption as

provided under Sections 87 and 91 of the Act is pending

WPC 10245/09
:2 :

consideration of the 1st respondent and if that be so, it is only

appropriate that the 1st respondent considers the said application.

4. Therefore, the writ petition is disposed of with the

following directions.

(1) That the 1st respondent shall consider Ext.P5 and pass

orders thereon. This shall be done, as expeditiously as possible,

at any rate within 3 months of production of a copy of this

judgment.

(2) In the meanwhile, there will be stay of implementation

of the scheme under the ESI Act, on condition that the 3rd

respondent shall deduct contribution that is payable by its

employees and keep the same in a separate account and if

ultimately exemption is allowed, the amount deducted shall be

returned to the respective workmen. On the other hand, if

exemption is not allowed, along with the contribution payable by

them, the same shall be remitted to the 2nd respondent

immediately thereafter.

ANTONY DOMINIC, JUDGE
Rp