IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) WEDNESDAY, THE TWENTY FIFTH DAY OF FEBRUARY TWO THOUSAND AND NINE PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE N.V. RAMANA WRIT PETITION NO : 3671 of 2009 Between: J.S. Industries Employees Union Rep. by its General Secretary, Mr. G.M. Lakshmudu, Bearing Regd. No. A-4435. Having its Office at: Sy.No. 145/A, I.D.A. Bollaram, Medak Dist. ..... PETITIONER AND 1 Employees State Insurance Corporation Rep. by its Regional Director, 5-9-23, Hill Fort Road, Adarsh Nagar, Hyderabad - 500 063. 2 The Commissioner (Vigilance) Employees Provident Fund & Miscellaneous Provisions Barkatpura, Hyderabad - 500 027. 3 J.S. Industries Private Limited Rep. by its Managing Director Plot No. 145/A, I.D.A. Bollara, Jinnaram Mandal, Medak Dist. .....RESPONDENTS Petition under Article 226 of the constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the Affidavit filed herein the High Court will be pleased to pass an order, direction or writ more particularly one in the nature of writ of mandamus declaring the inaction of the respondents 1 and 2 in taking action against the respondent No.3 for non-coverage of the employees of 3rd respondent who are the members of the petitioner union under ESI and EPF and MP Schemes as per the provisions of Employees State Insurance Act, 1948 and Employees Provident Funds and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952 as it being illegal and unjustified and for a consequential direction to the respondents 1 and 2 to take action against the 3rd respondent as per law. Counsel for the Petitioner: MR.K.LAKSHMAN Counsel for the Respondents: MR.B.G.RAVINDRA REDDY The Court made the following ORDER: THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE N.V. RAMANA Writ Petition No.3671 of 2009 Order: The main grievance of the petitioner-Union in this writ petition is that though it made a representation on 28.01.2009 to the Commissioner (Vigilance), Employees Provident Fund and Miscellaneous Provisions, Barkatpura, Hyderabad, the second respondent herein, complaining inaction on the part of the Management of the third respondent-company in covering 45 workmen under ESI and PF Schemes, no action has been taken thereon so far. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, the learned Standing Counsel for ESI Corporation appearing for the first respondent and the learned Standing Counsel for Provident Fund Corporation appearing for the second respondent. Admittedly, the representation made by the petitioner on 28.01.2009 is pending consideration. Hence, I deem it appropriate to dispose of the writ petition with a direction to respondents 1 and 2 to consider the representation of the petitioner, dated 28.01.2009, and pass appropriate orders thereon in accordance with law, after giving notice to the third respondent, expeditiously, within a period of eight weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. The writ petition is accordingly disposed of. No costs. ___________________ N.V. RAMANA, J. Date: 25.02.2009 VGB