IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE T.R.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR FRIDAY, THE 8TH FEBRUARY 2008 / 19TH MAGHA 1929 OP.No. 23485 of 2001(U) ---------------------------------- PETITIONERS: --------------------- 1. KANCOR FLAVOURS WORKERS UNION, REP.BY T.C.JACOB, ANGAMALY SOUTH, (REG. NO.242/75) 2. KANCOR EMPLOYEES UNION (CITU), REG. NO.148/71), ANGAMALY SOUTH 683 573, REP.BY ITS SECRETARY, P.P.POULOSE. BY ADV. SRI.P.RAMAKRISHNAN SMT.A.K.PREETHA RESPONDENTS: ----------------------- 1. KANCOR FLAVOURS AND EXTRACTS LIMITED, REP.BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR, ANGAMALY. 2. STATE OF KERALA, REP.BY THE SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, DEPARTNMENT OF LABOUR, TRIVANDRUM. 3. EMPLOYEES STATE INSURANCE CORPORATION, REP.BY ITS REGIONAL DIRECTOR, TRICHUR. BY ADV. SRI.JOSEPH MARKOSE SRI.P.SANKARANKUTTY NAIR BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI.MATHEW G.VADAKKEL THIS ORIGINAL PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 08/02/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: OP. NO.234585/2001 ORDER ON CMP. NO. 38485/2001 IN OP.NO.23485/2001 DISMISSED 08.02.2008 SD/- T.R.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR, JUDGE APPENDIX PETITIONERS EXHIBITS EXT.P1:- COPY OF THE ORDER NO.8006/B3/2001 LBR DT. 30.5.01 ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT, REJECTING THE EXAMPTION APPLICATION SUBMITTED BY THE IST RESPONDENT. EXT.P2:- COPY OF THE CONSOLIDATED STATEMENT OF MEDICAL BENEFITS AVAILABLE TO EMPLOYEES REP.BY THE PETITIONER. EXT.P3:- COPY OF THE NOTIFICATION G.O.(RT) NO.3119/98/LBR DT. 9.10.98 GRANTING EXEMPTION TO THE IST RESPONDENT ESTABLISHMENT FOR THE PERIOD 1.1.98 TO 31.12.98. RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS EXT.R1(a):- COPY OF THE JUDGMENT IN OP. NO.12895 OF THE HONOURABLE HIGH COURT. EXT.R1(b):- COPY OF THE PROFORMA APPLICATION FOR EXEMPTION FILED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT WITH ENCLOSURES. /TRUE COPY/ P.A. TO JUDGE tss T.R.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR, J. ========================= O.P.No.23485 of 2001-U. ========================= Dated this the 8th day of February, 2008. J U D G M E N T The petitioners represent the workers of the first respondent establishment. The challenge in the original petition is against Ext.P1 whereby the request for exemption from ESI coverage was rejected by the Government. 2. The learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the workers are enjoying better benefits than that are provided under the ESI scheme and this is the circumstance under which the first respondent had submitted an application for exemption as envisaged under Section 87 of the ESI Act. It appears that there was an earlier writ petition OP.No.6048/2001 filed by the petitioners which was disposed of directing the Government to consider the matter. The learned counsel further submitted that before Ext.P1 order was passed neither the Management nor the O.P.No.23485 of 2001-U. 2 Union were heard, and since this is a matter affecting their interests the Government have to ascertain the views of parties concerned. Therefore, Ext.P1 is quashed. The Government will reconsider the matter and pass fresh orders after hearing the petitioners and the management within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this Judgment. The Original Petition is disposed of as above. T.R.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR, JUDGE. kvs/-