IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.T.RAVIKUMAR TUESDAY, THE 2ND NOVEMBER 2010 / 11TH KARTHIKA 1932 WP(C).No. 28307 of 2010(K) -------------------------- PETITIONER(S): ---------------------- 1. TELK EMPLOYEES UNION (CITU), REPRESENTED BY ITS JOINT SECRETARY, ANKAMALY SOUTH.P.O., ERNAKULAM DISTRICT, PIN-683 573. 2. TELK WORKERS' CONGRESS (INTUC), REPRESENTED BY ITS JOINT SECRETARY, ANKAMALY SOUTH.P.O., ERNAKULAM DISTRICT, PIN-683 573. 3. TECHNICAL EMPLOYEES AND STAFF ASSOCIATION OF TELK, REPRESENTED BY ITS TREASURER, ANKAMALY SOUTH.P.O., ERNAKULAM DISTRICT, PIN-683 573. BY ADV. SRI.K.BALACHANDRAN (MANGALATH) SRI.RAJESH NAIR RESPONDENT(S): ------------------------ 1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY ITS CHIEF SECRETARY, SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. LABOUR AND REHABHILITATION (B) DEPARTMENT, GOVERNMENT OF KERALA, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY. 3. EMPLOYEES STATE INSURANCE CORPORATION, REGIONAL OFFICE, THRISSUR, REPRESENTED BY ITS DIRECTOR. 4. TRANSFORMERS AND ELECTRICAL LIMITED, ANKAMALY SOUTH.P.O., REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR. R1 TO R3 BY GOVERNMENT PLEDAR MR.K.C.SANTHOSH R3 BY MR.P.SANKARAN KUTTY NAIR, SC, ESI CORPORATION ADV. SRI.SAJI VARGHESE FOR R4 SMT.MARIAM MATHAI FOR R4 THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 02/11/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: jvt C.T. RAVIKUMAR, J - - - - - - - - - - - - -- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - W.P.(C)No. 28307 OF 2010 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dated this the 2nd day of November, 2010 J U D G M E N T This writ petition has been filed mainly with a prayer to issue a writ of mandamus commanding the respondents 1 and 2 to exempt the 4th respondent from the purview and operation of the ESI Act for the year 2009-10. The further prayer is for issuance of a writ of mandamus commanding the respondents 1 and 2 to dispose of Ext.P3 after hearing all the parties within a specified time limit. In view of the order I propose to pass in this writ petition, I do not think it necessary to consider various contentions in detail. Evidently, Ext.P3 is a petition filed by the 4th respondent, employer and therefore, the petitioners cannot file a petition seeking a direction for disposal of the said petition which was filed by the 4th respondent. The question is to be decided is whether the petitioners are having a right of being heard when Ext.P3 petition is taken up for consideration in the light of the decision of Honourable Apex Court in Fertilizers and Chemicals Travancore Ltd., vs. ESI Corporation(2009(9) WPC.28307/2010 : 2 : SCC 485). 2. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioners are having a right of being heard in the proceedings when Ext.P3 is taken up for consideration. The learned Standing Counsel for the 3rd respondent submits that the petitioners cannot seek for a direction to dispose of Ext.P3, but, at the same time in the light of the aforesaid decision of the Apex Court, they have the right of being heard when Ext.P3 is taken up for consideration by the appropriate authority. In view of the said position, without considering the merits of the contentions raised in this writ petition, it is disposed of with a direction to the second respondent to afford opportunity of being heard to the petitioners as well, when Ext.P3 is taken up for consideration. Disposed of accordingly. Sd/- (C.T. RAVIKUMAR, JUDGE) jma //True copy// P.A to Judge