Kerala Khadi And Village … vs State Of Kerala on 30 November, 2010

       

  

  

 
 
  IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

WP(C).No. 35606 of 2010(A)


1. KERALA KHADI AND VILLAGE INDUSTRIES
                      ...  Petitioner

                        Vs



1. STATE OF KERALA,
                       ...       Respondent

2. THE DEPUTY DIRECTOR,

3. THE REVENUE RECOVERY OFFICER,

                For Petitioner  :SRI.K.P.HARISH,SC,KERALA KHADI BOARD

                For Respondent  : No Appearance

The Hon'ble MR. Justice C.T.RAVIKUMAR

 Dated :30/11/2010

 O R D E R
                            C.T.RAVIKUMAR, J.
                        ---------------------------------------
                        W.P(C)No.35606 of 2010
                        ----------------------------------------
                       Dated 30th November, 2010

                                  JUDGMENT

The petitioner assails Exts.P7, P7(a), P7(b) and P9 in this writ

petition. Proceedings were initiated against the petitioner based on

Exts.P7, P7(a), P7(b) and P9 for recovering the arrears determined in

terms of section 45-A of the Employees State Insurance Act, 1948 (for

short `the ESI Act’). The contention of the petitioner is that the petitioner

has already approached the Government by filing Exts.P4 to P6(a)

seeking exemption from the purview of the ESI Act in terms of section 87

read with section 91 of the ESI Act. The said applications are still pending

before the Government. It is during the pendency of those applications

that the respondents have taken action as per Exts.P7, P7(a), P7(b) and

P9.

2. I have heard the learned counsel appearing for the

petitioner, learned standing counsel for respondents 2 and 3 and also the

learned Government Pleader.

3. Admittedly, Exts.P4 to P6(a) applications carrying requests

for exemption from the purview of the ESI Act under section 87 read with

section 91 of the ESI Act are pending before the first respondent.

WP(C).No.35606/2010 2

According to the learned counsel for the petitioner, on an earlier occasion

in the year 2008 after considering similar representations from the

petitioner seeking exemption the petitioner was granted exemption from

the purview of the ESI Act. Considering all these aspects, this writ petition

is disposed of with a direction to the first respondent to consider and pass

orders on Exts.P4 to P6(a) expeditiously, at any rate within a period of

two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. Till

Government consider and pass orders on Exts.P4 to P6(a), respondents 2

and 3 shall keep in abeyance all further proceedings pursuant to Exts.P7

series and P9. Needless to say that the necessity to proceed with Exts.P7

series and P9 will depend upon the decision of the Government on the

aforesaid applications which are directed to be disposed of.

C.T.RAVIKUMAR
Judge

TKS