IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.SIRI JAGAN FRIDAY, THE 4TH DECEMBER 2009 / 13TH AGRAHAYANA 1931 WP(C).No. 34956 of 2009(L) -------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- MES COLLEGE FOR ADVANCED STUDIES, EDATHALA, ALUVA, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY AND CORRESPONDENT MR.JAINI.K. BY ADV. SMT.M.A.VAHEEDA BABU MR.P.G.PRAMOD MR.KANDAMPULLY RAHUL RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. EMPLOYEES STATE INSURANCE CORPORATION, REPRESENTED BY ITS DIRECTOR, PANCHDEEP BHAVAN, CLG ROAD, NEW DELHI-110002. 2. DEPUTY DIRECTOR, EMPLOYEES STATE INSURANCE CORPORATION, SUB REGIONAL OFFICE (ERNAKULAM), MALU'S COMPLEX, ST.FRANCIS CHURCH ROAD, KALOOR, KOCHI-17. BY ADV. MR. P.SANKARANKUTTY NAIR THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 04/12/2009, ALONG WITH WPC NO. 34981 OF 2009 THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: S. SIRI JAGAN, J .......................................................... W.P(C) Nos. 34956 & 34981 of 2009 .......................................................... Dated this the 4th day of December, 2009 J U D G M E N T In these two writ petitions the petitioners are two educational institutions. The 2nd respondent has issued Ext.P5 (in both writ petitions) notices under the Employees State Insurance Act, directing the petitioner to show cause why the petitioners' institutions should not be covered under the Act and contributions demanded from them as proposed therein. Petitioners have filed their replies to the notices. They now apprehend that since on the date fixed for hearing, they were not present, the 2nd respondent is likely to pass orders without granting the petitioner's an opportunity of being heard. The petitioners submit that they could not appear before the 2nd respondent on the date fixed for hearing for reasons beyond their control. The petitioner therefore seeks a direction to the 2nd respondent to consider the objections filed by the petitioners and to pass an order after affording the petitioner an opportunity of being heard. W.P(C) Nos. 34956 & 34981 of 2009 -2- 2. I have heard the standing counsel for the ESI corporation also. I am of opinion that the petitioners should be given another opportunity of being heard. Accordingly, these writ petitions are disposed of with a direction to the 2nd respondent, (in both writ petitions) to afford the petitioners another opportunity of being heard, before passing orders pursuant to Ext.P5 (in both writ petitions). If any orders have already been passed the 2nd respondent shall re-consider the matter after hearing the petitioner and pass a fresh order. sd/- S. SIRI JAGAN, JUDGE rhs // True copy // PA to Judge