1 54-09.sxw IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO.54 OF 2009 Deepak Tanaji Kamble ..Petitioner Vs. Union of India & 6 others . ..Respondents ......... Mr.V.P.Patil, for petitioner. Mr.Minoo Sisodia i/b.M/s.Rustamji and Ginwala, for respondent no.2. Mrs.Shradha Chavan a/w.Mrs.M.Bodhe i/b.Suresh Kumar, for respondent no.3. Mr.D.P.Adsule, APP for respondent - State. Mr.P.M.Palshikar, for respondent no.4. Mr.V.P.Vaidya, for respondent no.6. ......... CORAM: P.B.MAJMUDAR & R.G.KETKAR, JJ. DATE : 22nd JANUARY, 2010. P.C. : 1] By way of this petition, the petitioner, who is an employee of respondent no.5, has prayed that appropriate writ or order may be issued under Article 226 of the Constitution of India directing respondent nos.3 and 4 to take action against respondent nos.5 and 6 after making 2 54-09.sxw appropriate inquiry in the matter and respondent nos.5 and 6 may also be directed to be prosecuted for violating the provisions of the Employees’ Provident Funds & Misc. Provisions Act, 1952 and provisions of Employees’ State Insurance Act, 1948 (E.S.I. Act). 2] On behalf of the E.S.I. Corporation an affidavit has been filed by one Mr.Nana Laxman Bhais, Insurance Inspector. In the affidavit, it is pointed out that there is no violation of the provisions of E.S.I. Act. It is also pointed out in the affidavit that while interrogating the employees it is reported that they have not received ESI Identity Cards. It is further pointed out in the affidavit that if there is any grievance regarding the Identity Cards, the same can be sorted out by issuing duplicate cards. 3] Mr.Palshikar, learned counsel for the respondent no.4 – ESI Corporation states that the Corporation shall make necessary inquiry, if necessary, and if any violation is noticed, action against the erring party will be taken in accordance with law. So far as question regarding the provident fund is concerned, the learned counsel for the respondent No.3 - Provident Fund Commissioner states that the authority shall inquire into the grievance of the petitioner and if there is any violation of the provisions of the Employees’ Provident Fund Act, appropriate procedure shall be 3 54-09.sxw initiated against the erring party. 4] Mr.Vaidya, learned counsel for the respondent no.6 states that there is no violation of the provisions of the Act by the respondents. However, this aspect is required to be looked into by the Provident Fund Commissioner and he may hold an inquiry according to the law and take appropriate decision in this behalf. 5] Subject to what is stated above, Writ Petition is disposed of. [R.G. KETKAR, J.] [P.B. MAJMUDAR, J.]