IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.SIRI JAGAN WEDNESDAY, THE 28TH MAY 2008 / 7TH JYAISHTA 1930 WP(C).No. 15804 of 2008(F) -------------------------- PETITIONER: ------------ 1. FIT EMPLOYEES UNION, REG.NO.170/56, THAIKKATTUKARA, ALUVA, REPRESENTED BY ITS VICE PRESIDENT A.B.SANTHOSH. 2. FIT STAFF AND WORKERS ASSOCIATION, REG.NO.7/5/1987, THAIKKATTUKARA, ALUVA, REPRESENTED BY ITS VICE PRESIDENT P.V.ELDHOS. 3. FIT STAF AND WORKERS ORGANISATION, REG.NO.07/61/92, THAIKKATTUKARA, ALUVA, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, V.E.JANARDHANAN. BY ADV. SRI.P.RAMAKRISHNAN RESPONDENTS: ------------- 1. FOREST INDUSTRIES (TRAVANCORE) LIMITED, THAIKKATTUKARA, ALUVA, REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR. 2. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF LABOUR AND REHABILITATION, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 3. EMPLOYEES STATE INSURANCE CORPORATION, PANCHADEEP BHAVAN, NORTH SWARAJ ROUND, THRISSUR-680 020, REPRESENTED BY ITS DIRECTOR. GOVT. PLEADER SHRI.I.V.PRAMOD SHRI.T.P.M.IBRAHIM KHAN, SC THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 28/05/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: S.SIRI JAGAN, J. ================== W.P.(C).No.15804 of 2008 ================== Dated this the 28th day of May, 2008 J U D G M E N T The petitioners are unions representing the employees of the 1st respondent. They applied for exemption from the provisions of the Employees' State Insurance Act on the ground that the management is providing better medical benefits than those provided by the ESI Corporation. Ultimately they lost in the their pursuit and this Court also rejected their claim. During the pendency of the writ petition contributions were being deducted from the wages of employees of the 1st respondent and were being retained by the 1st respondent employer. The Corporation is demanding payment of the same. Now the petitioners claim that since they had not received any benefits from the E.S.I. Corporation for the period to which the contributions relate, the contributions should be refunded to them. The petitioners submit that in view of the observation in Ext.P2 judgment of this Court, they are eligible for consideration of their claim for refund of the contributions, which has not been w.p.c.15804/08 2 properly considered in Ext.P4 order of the Government in this regard. 2. I have considered the contentions of the petitioners. 3. The petitioners sought exemption and obtained appropriate orders for not paying the contributions deducted, to the ESI Corporation, at their own risk which is provisional and subject to the writ petition. The petitioners sought exemption on the ground that they were getting superior medical benefits from the management than what was provided by the ESI Corporation. Therefore, the petitioners did not lose anything even if they have not received any benefit from ESI Corporation. Even according to the petitioners, they were getting benefits from the management. The Supreme Court has held that the contributions under the ESI Act are not in respect of employees, but are contributions into a fund. That being so, once their claim for exemption is rejected finally and the writ petition is dismissed, the petitioners cannot demand that contributions deducted from their wages and retained by the employer as per the orders of this Court have to be refunded to the workers. Both the workers and the management are bound to make over the contributions, both w.p.c.15804/08 3 employees and employers, for the relevant period to the Corporation. Therefore, I do not find any merit in the writ petition and accordingly, the same is dismissed. Sd/- sdk+ S.SIRI JAGAN, JUDGE ///True copy/// P.A. to Judge