IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC WEDNESDAY, THE 19TH MARCH 2008 / 29TH PHALGUNA 1929 WP(C).No. 9390 of 2008(P) ------------------------- PETITIONER: ------------ M/S.KANCOR INGREDIENTS LIMITED KANCOR ROAD, ANGAMALLY SOUTH-683 573 REPRESENTED BY ITS SENIOR EXECUTIVE - PERSONNEL & ADMINISTRATION MR.V.V.DIVAKARAN. BY ADV. SRI.JOSEPH KODIANTHARA SRI.TERRY V.JAMES RESPONDENTS: ------------- 1. THE REGIONAL DIRECTOR (KERALA) E.S.I. CORPORATION, "PANCHDEEP BHAVAN" NORTH SWARAJ ROUND, THRISSUR. 2. THE RECOVERY OFFICER REGIONAL DIRECTOR (KERALA) E.S.I. CORPORATION, "PANCHDEEP BHAVAN" NORTH SWARAJ ROUND, THRISSUR. 3. STATE OF KERALA, REP. BY THE SECRETARY TO THE GOVERNMENT OF KERALA LABOUR AND REHABILITATION (F) DEPARTMENT GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT, TRIVANDRUM. 4. KANCOR EMPLOYEES' UNION (CITU) ANGAMALLY SOUTH-683 573, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY. 5. KANCOR FLAVOURS WORKERS' UNION ANGAMALLY SOUTH-683 573, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY. 6. THE RECOVERY INSPECTOR E.S.I. CORPORATION, "PANCHDEEP BHAVAN" NORTH SWARAJ ROUND, THRISSUR. R1, 2 & 6 BY STANDING COUNSEL SMT. T.D.RAJALEKSHMI THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 19/03/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: ANTONY DOMINIC, J. ------------------------------------ W.P.(C) 9390 of 2008 ------------------------------------- Dated: MARCH 19, 2008 JUDGMENT By submitting Exts.P6 to P8 petitioner sought exemption from the purview of the ESI Act for the years 1999-2000. It is stated by the petitioner that when there was a threat of recovery of the amount due for the aforesaid period, petitioner had filed a writ petition before this court as OP No.20591/2000. That case was disposed of by Ext.P11 judgment directing the 3rd respondent therein to consider and pass orders on the exemption petitions which were filed by the petitioner, within four months from the date of receipt of a copy of the judgment. In the meantime stay was also granted for the aforesaid period. It is submitted by the petitioner that despite lapse of the period specified as above, orders were not passed on the exemption petitions. While the position remained as above, by issuing Ext.P12 the amount due for the WP(C) 9390/08 Page numbers period covered by Exts.P6 to P8 applications is sought to be recovered from the petitioner and thereupon this writ petition was filed. 2. It is now submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that by issuing Exts.P14 and P15, a portion of the amount has been realised from the bank. 3. From the facts as above, it is obvious that the 3rd respondent has not complied with the direction issued in Ext.P11 judgment by considering and passing orders on Exts.P6 to P8 applications filed by the petitioner for exemption. It is while this default is continuing that Ext.P12 was issued and recovery is also effected. 4. In my view, the delay on the part of the 3rd respondent in considering and passing orders on Exts.P6 to P8 cannot cause prejudice to the petitioner. This is all the more so for the reason that according to the petitioner alternate benefits have already been extended for the period covered by the applications for exemption. For these reasons I dispose of this writ petition directing that WP(C) 9390/08 Page numbers the 3rd respondent shall consider and pass orders on Exts.P6 to P8 as expeditiously as possible, at any rate, within three months of production of a copy of this judgment. In the meantime, until orders are passed on the applications for exemption, further recovery pursuant to Ext.P12 shall stand stayed. ANTONY DOMINIC, JUDGE mt/-