IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.N.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR TUESDAY, THE 14TH JULY 2009 / 23RD ASHADHA 1931 WP(C).No. 29234 of 2005(E) -------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- KERALA STATE EX-SERVICE LEAGUE, VIMUKTHABHADA BHAVAN THAREKKAD, PALAKKAD, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY S.M.NAMBOODIRIPAD. BY ADV. SRI.P.RAMAKRISHNAN SRI.PRATAP ABRAHAM VARGHESE RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. THE STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, DEPARTMENT OF LABOUR AND REHABILITATION, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. E.S.I. CORPORATION, PANCHADEEP BHAVAN, NORTH SWARAJ ROUNG, P.B.NO.2, THRISSUR, REPRESENTED BY ITS REGIONAL DIRECTOR. 3. THE DISTRICT LABOUR OFFICER, PALAKKAD. ADV. SRI.T.P.M.IBRAHIM KHAN, SC, ESI CORPN. FOR R2 THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 14/07/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS: P1: TRUE COPY OF APPLICATION SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER TO R1 DT.3.2.2005. P2: TRUE COPY OF NOTICE ISSUED BY R3 TO PETITIOENR DT.13.6.2005. P3: TRUE COPY OF COMMUNICATION FROM R1 TO PETITIONER DT.6.8.2005. RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS: R2(A): PHOTOCOPY OF LETTER DT.13.5.2004 ISSUED BY THE EMPLOYEES STATE INSURANCE CORPORATION TO THE STATE GOVT. R2(B): PHOTOCOPY OF THE RETURN OF CONTRIBUTIONS FOR THE PERIOD FROM 1.4.2003 TO 30.9.2003 IN FORM NO.6 RELATING TO THE ESTABLISHMENT OF KELSO VIMUTHABHADA BHAVN, PALAKKAD. TRUE COPY PA TO JUDGE C.N.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR, J. .................................................................... W.P.(C) No.29234 of 2005 .................................................................... Dated this the 14th day of July, 2009. JUDGMENT Application filed by the petitioner for exemption from ESI Scheme was rejected by the Government vide Ext.P3. It is seen that petitioner is an organisation of ex-servicemen engaged in providing security services. Even though they have in Ext.P1 exhaustively stated the protection they got as ex-servicemen in health care and other matters, the Government has not considered any of these while rejecting the claim. Ext.P3 is not tenable because it is an order passed without considering any of the contentions raised by the petitioner. If the petitioner is protected under the conditions of service i.e. by providing them services of the kind rendered by ESI Corporation, there is no justification in dragging them to ESI as well. The W.P. is therefore disposed of vacating Ext.P3 with direction to the Government to reconsider the matter after considering the benefits available to the petitioner, stated in Ext.P1. In fact, State Government can even take the views of Ministry of Defence, Government of India, while considering the matter. The interim orders granted by this court will continue until orders are issued by the Government, which is directed to 2 pass fresh orders within a period of six months from now. The petitioner will produce a copy of this judgment and along with it subsequent applications or other details they wish to furnish before the Secretary to Government. C.N.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR Judge pms