IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.T.RAVIKUMAR MONDAY, THE 20TH DECEMBER 2010 / 29TH AGRAHAYANA 1932 WP(C).No. 36606 of 2010(A) ----------------------------------------- PETITIONER(S): ------------------------ PRAMODKUMAR.N,SREE VILAS, WEST VELIYATHUNADU,P.O.ALANGAD. BY ADVS. SRI.K.V.GOPINATHAN NAIR, SMT.G.CHITRA. RESPONDENT(S): --------------------------- 1. THE REGIONAL TRANSPORT AUTHORITY, ERNAKULAM REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, PIN-682 030. 2. THE SECRETARY,REGIONAL TRANSPORT AUTHORITY,ERNAKULAM,PIN-682 030. 3. K.K.JOSE,KAITHARAM HOUSE,CHERAI.P.O, PIN-683 514. R1 & R2 BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI. BASANT BALAJI THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 20/12/2010,THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: Kss C.T.RAVIKUMAR, J. --------------------------------------- W.P(C)No.35606 of 2010 ---------------------------------------- Dated 30th November, 2010 JUDGMENT The petitioner assails Exts.P7, P7(a), P7(b) and P9 in this writ petition. Such proceedings were initiated against the petitioner based on Exts.P7, P7(a), P7(b) and P9 for recovering the arrears determined in terms of section 45(a) of the Employees State Insurance Act, 1948 (for short `ESI Act'). The contention of the petitioner is that the petitioner has already approached the Government by filing Exts.P4 to P6(a) seeking exemption from the purview of the ESI Act in terms of section 87 read with section 91 of the ESI Act. The said applications are still pending before the Government. It is during the pendency of these applications that the respondents have taken action as per Exts.P7, P7(a), P7(b) and P9. 2. I have heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, learned standing counsel for respondents 2 and 3 and also the learned Government Pleader. 3. Admittedly, Exts.P4 to P6(a) applications carrying requests for exemption from the purview of the ESI Act under section 87 read with section 91 of the ESI Act are pending before the first respondent. WP(C).No.35606/2010 2 According to the learned counsel for the petitioner on an earlier occasion in the year 2008 after considering similar representations from the petitioner seeking exemption the company has granted exemption from the purview of the ESI Act. Considering all these aspects this writ petition is disposed of with a direction to the first respondent to consider and pass orders on Exts.P4 to P6(a) expeditiously, at any rate within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. Till Government consider and pass orders on Exts.P4 to P6(a), respondents 2 and 3 shall keep in abeyance all further proceedings pursuant to Exts.P7 series and P9. Needless to say that the necessity to proceed with Exts.P7 series and P9 will depend upon the outcome of the aforesaid applications directed to be disposed of. C.T.RAVIKUMAR Judge TKS