IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.BALAKRISHNAN NAIR & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.T.RAVIKUMAR FRIDAY, THE 3RD JULY 2009 / 12TH ASHADHA 1931 WP(C).No. 5986 of 2008(K) --------------------------------------------- PETITIONER(S): ----------------------- 1. KERALA CBSE SCHOOL MANAGEMENT'S ASSOCIATION, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY GEORGE KULANGARA, MUNNA VILLA, CHERANELLOOR ROAD EDAPPALLY, ERNAKULAM, KOCHI-682 024. 2. TOC-H PUBLIC SCHOOL, REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGER, K.VARGHESE, VYTILA, ERNAKULAM KOCHI-682 019. 3. RANI PUBLIC SCHOOL, REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGER V.R.KRISHNAN, PO CHERODE VADAKARA, KOZHIKODE-673 106 4. AL-AMEEN PUBLIC SCHOOL, REPRESENTED BY ITS PRINCIPAL MRS.SHAFEENA NIZAM, EDAPPALLY KOCHI-692 024. 5. CRESCENT PUBLIC SCHOOL, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, M.M.ABDUL RAHIMAN THOTTUMUGHOM, ALUVA. 6. HOLY GRACE ACADEMY, REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGER RAJU DAVIS PERUPADAN, MALA THRISSUR DISTRICT. 7. COCHIN PUBLIC SCHOOL, REPRESENTED BY ITS CHAIRMAN, K.K.ABOOBACKER THRIKKAKARA, KOCHI. BY ADV. SRI.O.V.RADHAKRISHNAN, SENIOR ADVOCATE SRI.ANTONY MUKKATH SRI.K.RAMACHANDRAN (THYKOODAM) SMT.K.RADHAMANI AMMA - 2 - WP(C).No. 5986 of 2008(K) RESPONDENT(S): ------------------------ 1. STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY ITS CHIEF SECRETARY, GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 001. 2. UNION OF INDIA REPRESENTED ITS SECRETARY MINISTRY OF HEALTH, CENTRAL SECRETARIAT NEW DELHI-110 001. 3. EMPLOYEES' STATE INSURANCE CORPORATION REPRESENTED BY ITS DIRECTOR, PANCHDEEP BHAVAN CLG ROAD, NEW DELHI-110 002. 4. ASSISTANT DIRECTOR EMPLOYEES' STATE INSURANCE CORPORATION REGIONAL OFFICE (KERALA), PANCHDEEP BHAVAN ROUND NORTH, THRISSUR-680 020 R1 BY SENIOR GOVT. PLEADER SRI. BENNY GERVASIS R2 BY ADDL.CGSC SMT.A.SREEKALA, R3 & R4 BY STANDING COUNSEL SMT.T.D.RAJALAKSHMY. & SRI.P.SANKARANKUTTY NAIR. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 17.06.2009, ALONG WITH WPC NO. 36972/07, WPC NO. 37172/07 WPC NO. 7344 /08 WPC NO. 7644/08 WPC NO. 8016/08, WPC NO. 8052/08 WPC NO. 8474/08 WPC NO. 8783 OF 2008 WPC NO. 8957 OF 2008 WPC NO. 9894 OF 2008 WPC NO. 10884 OF 2008 WPC NO. 11425 OF 2008 WPC NO. 11858 OF 2008 WPC NO. 11991 OF 2008 WPC NO. 12032 OF 2008 WPC NO. 13861 OF 2008 WPC NO. 13453 OF 2008 WPC NO. 14824 OF 2008 WPC NO. 15102 OF 2008 WPC NO. 15110 OF 2008 WPC NO. 15111 OF 2008 WPC NO. 15152 OF 2008 WPC NO. 15154 OF 2008 WPC NO. 15177 OF 2008 WPC NO. 16928 OF 2008 WPC NO. 18242 OF 2008 WPC NO. 18307 OF 2008 WPC NO. 18317 OF 2008 WPC NO. 18793 OF 2008 WPC NO. 18797 OF 2008 WPC NO. 18798 OF 2008 WPC NO. 18804 OF 2008 WPC NO. 19149 OF 2008 WPC NO. 19163 OF 2008 WPC NO. 19171 OF 2008 WPC NO. 19255 OF 2008 WPC NO. 19446 OF 2008 WPC NO. 19480 OF 2008 WPC NO. 19537 OF 2008 WPC NO. 20279 OF 2008 WPC NO. 21011 OF 2008 WPC NO. 21291 OF 2008 WPC NO. 22866 OF 2008 WPC NO. 22902 OF 2008 WPC NO. 23328 OF 2008 WPC NO. 23424 OF 2008 WPC NO. 24107 OF 2008 WPC NO. 24510 OF 2008 WPC NO. 24706 OF 2008 WPC NO. 24719 OF 2008 WPC NO. 24772 OF 2008 WPC NO. 25349 OF 2008 WPC NO. 25422 OF 2008 WPC NO. 26954 OF 2008 WPC NO. 27260 OF 2008 WPC NO. 27578 OF 2008 WPC NO. 28064 OF 2008 WPC NO. 28065 OF 2008 WPC NO. 28149 OF 2008 WPC NO. 28823 OF 2008 WPC NO. 29103 OF 2008 WPC NO. 29261 OF 2008 WPC NO. 29418 OF 2008 WPC NO. 30223 OF 2008 - 3 - WP(C).No. 5986 of 2008(K) WPC NO. 31457 OF 2008 WPC NO. 31731 OF 2008 WPC NO. 31767 OF 2008 WPC NO. 32270 OF 2008 WPC NO. 32585 OF 2008 WPC NO. 33489 OF 2008 WPC NO. 33501 OF 2008 WPC NO. 34859 OF 2008 WPC NO. 35309 OF 2008 WPC NO. 35336 OF 2008 WPC NO. 36531 OF 2008 WPC NO. 36553 OF 2008 WPC NO. 36560 OF 2008 WPC NO. 36687 OF 2008 WPC NO. 36975 OF 2008 WPC NO. 37227 OF 2008 WPC NO. 37915 OF 2008 WPC NO. 581 OF 2009 WPC NO. 655 OF 2009 WPC NO. 676 OF 2009 WPC NO. 679 OF 2009 WPC NO. 754 OF 2009 WPC NO. 1152 OF 2009 WPC NO. 1691 OF 2009 WPC NO. 2137 OF 2009 WPC NO. 2142 OF 2009 WPC NO. 4218 OF 2009 WPC NO. 4348 OF 2009 WPC NO. 4503 OF 2009 WPC NO. 4656 OF 2009 WPC NO. 5361 OF 2009 WPC NO. 5879 OF 2009 WPC NO. 6020 OF 2009 WPC NO. 6129 OF 2009 WPC NO. 6183 OF 2009 WPC NO. 6337 OF 2009 WPC NO. 8053 OF 2009 WPC NO. 8087 OF 2009 WPC NO. 9567 OF 2009 WPC NO. 9829 OF 2009 WPC NO. 10509 OF 2009 WPC NO. 10577 OF 2009 WPC NO. 11985 OF 2009 WPC NO. 12284 OF 2009 WPC NO. 12314 OF 2009 WPC NO. 12398 OF 2009 WPC NO. 12906 OF 2009 WPC NO. 13015 OF 2009 WPC NO. 13053 OF 2009 WPC NO. 13058 OF 2009 WPC NO. 13115 OF 2009 WPC NO. 13611 OF 2009 WPC NO. 13938 OF 2009 WPC NO. 14084 OF 2009 WPC NO. 14132 OF 2009 AND WPC NO. 14462 OF 2009, THE COURT ON 03.07. 2009 DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: APPENDIX PETITIONERS' EXHIBITS: Ext.P1: A photostat copy of the notification dated 8.10.2007 published in the Keala Gazette Extra Ordinary, dated 9.10.2007. Ext.P2: A photostat copy of the other conditions for affiliation with CBSE. Ext.P3: A photostat copy of the notice dated 15.11.2007 served on the 4th petitioner. RESPONDENTS EXHIBITS: Annexure R1(a): True copy of the notification as per G.O.(P) No.69/2008/LBR dated 05.05.2008. Annexure R1(b): True copy of the communication dated 15.02.2007 Annexure R1(c): True copy of the Notification as per G.O.(P) No.34/07/LBR dated 20.03.2007 (True copy) P.S. TO JUDGE. K. BALAKRISHNAN NAIR & C.T. RAVIKUMAR, JJ. ------------------------------------ W.P(C). Nos.5986 of 2008 36972/07, 37172/07, 7344/08, 7644/08, 8016/08, 8052/08, 8474/08, 8783/08, 8957/08, 9894/08, 10884/08, 11425/08, 11858/08, 11991/08, 12032/08, 13861/08, 13453/08, 14824/08, 15102/08, 15110/08, 15111/08, 15152/08, 15154/08, 15177/08, 16928/08, 18242/08, 18307/08, 18317/08, 18793/08, 18797/08, 18798/08, 18804/08, 19149/08, 19163/08, 19171/08, 19255/08, 19446/08, 19480/08, 19537/08, 20279/08, 21011/08, 21291/08, 22866/08, 22902/08, 23328/08, 23424/08, 24107/08, 24510/08, 24706/08, 24719/08, 24772/08, 25349/08, 25422/08, 26954/08, 27260/08, 27578/08, 28064/08, 28065/08, 28149/08, 28823/08, 29103/08, 29261/08, 29418/08, 30223/08, 31457/08, 31731/08, 31767/08, 32270/08, 32585/08, 33489/08, 33501/08, 34859/08, 35309/08, 35336/08, 36531/08, 36553/08, 36560/08, 36687/08, 36975/08, 37227/08, 37915/08, 581/09, 655/09, 676/09, 679/09, 754/09, 1152/09, 1691/09, 2137/09, 2142/09, 4218/09, 4348/09, 4503/09, 4656/09, 5361/09, 5879/09, 6020/09, 6129/09, 6183/09, 6337/09, 8053/09, 8087/09, 9567/09, 9829/09, 10509/09, 10577/09, 11985/09, 12284/09, 12314/09, 12398/09, 12906/09, 13015/09, 13053/09, 13058/09, 13115/09, 13611/09, 13938/09, 14084/09, 14132/09, and 14462/09. ------------------------------------ Dated, this the 3rd day of July, 2009 JUDGMENT Balakrishnan Nair, J. The point that arises for decision in these cases is whether the notification dated 8.10.2007, issued by the Kerala Government under Section 1(5) of the Employees State Insurance Act, 1948, extending the provisions of the said Act WPC No.5986/08 and connected cases - 2 - to educational institutions, is valid or not. The petitioners in these cases represent the managements of schools affiliated to CBSE, ICSE and also unaided but recognised schools under the Kerala Education Rules. Some of the Self Financing Colleges are also before us. 2. W.P.(C) No.5986/2008 is treated as the main case, for the purpose of referring to the exhibits. The writ petitions, as mentioned earlier, are filed challenging the notification, G.O.(P) No.135/2007/LBR dated 8.10.2007, issued by the State Government under Section 1(5) of the Employees State Insurance Act, 1948 (for short, referred to as "ESI Act"). By the said notification, which is produced as Ext.P1, the provisions of ESI Act have been made applicable to educational institutions (including public, private, aided or partially aided) run by individuals, trustees, societies or other organisations, wherein twenty or more persons are employed or were employed on any day in the preceding 12 months and which are working in the areas where the scheme under the WPC No.5986/08 and connected cases - 3 - ESI Act has already been brought into force under sub-sections (3) and (5) of Section 1 of the Act. After the issuance of the above notification, the Government have issued G.O.(P) No.69/2008/LBR dated 5.5.2008, produced as Ext.R1(a) by the Government along with its counter affidavit, modifying Ext.P1 notification, by excluding public and aided schools from the purview of the said notification. The reason given is that, the staff of public and aided educational institutions enjoy service benefits applicable to Government Servants and, therefore, it was unnecessary to extend the provisions of the Act to such institutions. 3. The petitioners attack Ext.P1 notification, mainly, on the following ground: “By issuing Ext.P1, the Government have exceeded its powers conferred under Section 1(5) of the ESI Act. In other words, Ext.P1 is ultra vires and unauthorised by the said section , and therefore, ab initio void”. This ground of attack is sought to be sustained relying on the following reasons: WPC No.5986/08 and connected cases - 4 - (a) The educational institutions not being establishments similar to industrial, commercial or agricultural establishments, are not covered by the words 'or otherwise' used in Sec. 1 (5). The meaning of the words 'or otherwise' should be read down in the light of the principle of ejusdem generis and the notification can cover only establishments engaged in activities similar to industrial, commercial or agricultural activities. (b) The schools affiliated to CBSE are under the control of the Central Government and therefore, the appropriate Government to issue the notification under Section 1(5) of the Act is the Central Government and not the State Government. For that reason also, Ext.P1 is ultra vires and therefore, unenforceable. 4. The first respondent State, which is the author of Ext.P1 notification, has filed a counter affidavit in WP(C) No.19149 of 2008. By filing memos, the said affidavit has been adopted in other cases also. In W.P.(C) No.5986 of 2008, the State has filed an additional statement. It fully supports Ext.P1. According to it, the Government have necessary WPC No.5986/08 and connected cases - 5 - competence to issue a notification in the nature of Ext.P1. The words 'or otherwise' employed are wide enough to cover all other establishments other than industrial, commercial or agricultural. Since the words “industrial, commercial or agricultural” belong to different categories, the meaning of the general words 'or otherwise' cannot be read down by applying the principle of ejusdem generis. Even assuming, it is to be so read down, according to the State, since educational institutions have been held to be industrial establishments by the Supreme Court in Bangalore Water Supply and Sewerage Board v. A.Rajappa (1978) 2 SCC 213, the notification does not suffer from any infirmity. It also submits that though the CBSE is controlled by the Central Government, it cannot be said that the schools affiliated to CBSE are also controlled by the Central Government. So, the State prayed for dismissing the writ petition. 5. The E.S.I. Corporation has filed counter affidavits in all the writ petitions, supporting the validity of the WPC No.5986/08 and connected cases - 6 - notification. In some cases, the petitioners have challenged the consequential action taken against them pursuant to Ext.P1. But, in this case, we propose to confine our decision to the validity of Ext.P1 notification only. If we strike down Ext.P1, all consequential actions taken pursuant to Ext.P1 would also collapse. If we uphold Ext.P1, the petitioners have statutory remedies against the actions taken against them, under the provisions of the ESI Act. 6. We heard learned Senior Counsel, Sri.O.V.Radhakrishnan, who appeared for the petitioner in WP (C) No.5986 of 2008, which is Kerala CBSE Management Association. We also heard Sri.Govind K. Bharathan (Sr.), Sri.K.R.B.Kaimal (Sr.), Smt. V.P. Seemandini (Sr.), Sri. V.K. Beeran (Sr.), Sri.U.K. Ramakrishnan (Sr.), Sri.V.M.Kurian, Sri.P.S.Sreedharan Pillai, Sri.P.M.Pareeth, Sri.Wilson Urmese, Sri.Augustine Joseph, Sri. V.V. Asokan, Sri.T.K.Ajith Kumar, Smt. Jishamol Cleetus, Sri.N.Nagaresh, Sri.R.V.Sreejith, Sri.Johnson P.John, Sri.V.A.Muhammed, Sri.V.A.Shaji, WPC No.5986/08 and connected cases - 7 - Sri.K.B.Gangesh, Smt.P.Shyni, Smt.Lekha Suresh, Smt.P.K.Priya, Smt.M.A.Vaheeda Babu, Sri.A.X.Xavier, Sri.N. Subramaniam, Sri.Harish R.Menon, Sri.A.V.Ramakrishna Panicker, Sri.A. Rajasimhan, Sri.M.A. Thomas Kutty, Sri.A.Mohamed Mustaque, Sri.Ghosh Yohannan, Sri.K.M.Mohammed Kunhi, Sri.K.Karthikeya Panicker, Sri.G.Sreekumar (Chelur), Smt.S.Karthika, Sri.L.Aloysius Thomas, Sri.K.S. Hariharaputhran, Sri.Manoj Ramaswamy, Sri.P.V.Baby, Sri.M.Mohamed Navaz, Sri.V.Ramkumar Nambiar, learned counsel who appeared for the petitioners in the connected writ petitions. On behalf of the State, we heard Sri.Benny Gervasis, learned Senior Government Pleader. We also had the benefit of hearing Smt.T.D.Rajalekshmy and Sri.T.V.Ajayakumar, who appeared for the E.S.I. Corporation. 7. The learned Senior Counsel, Sri. O.V.Radhakrishnan, submitted that the words 'or otherwise' used in Section 1(5) of the E..S.I. Act should be understood with reference to the words employed preceding them. The WPC No.5986/08 and connected cases - 8 - activity which could be covered by a notification should be similar to industrial, commercial or agricultural activities. The principle of ejusdem generis will squarely apply to the interpretation of the words 'or otherwise' employed in Sec.1 (5). Though, for the purpose of Industrial Disputes Act, educational institutions have been held to be industry, the said artificial meaning contained in the Industrial Disputes Act cannot be extended to the word 'industrial' employed in Section 1(5) of the E.S.I. Act. The learned Senior Counsel, in support of his submissions, relied on the decisions of the Apex Court in Controller of Estate Duty v. Parvathy Ammal, AIR 1975 SC 435; Controller of Estate Duty v. R.V.Viswanathan, AIR 1977 SC 463; Parakh Food Limited v. State of U.P., (2008) 4 SCC 584; Dabur India Limited v. K.R.Industries, (2008) 10 SCC 595; N. Parameswaran Pillai v. Union of India, (2002) 4 SCC 497; Ruth Soren v. Managing Committee, East I.S.S.D.A. and others (2001) 2 SCC 115. The learned Senior Counsel also referred to the decisions of the Apex Court in T.M.A. Pai WPC No.5986/08 and connected cases - 9 - Foundation's case (2002) 8 SCC 481 and P.A.Inamdar's case (2005) 6 SCC 537, wherein it was held that the running of an educational institution is an activity covered under Article 19(1) (g) of the Constitution of India. 8. The learned Senior Counsel Sri.Govind K.Bharathan, submitted that as far as the schools affiliated to CBSE are concerned, the appropriate Government is the Central Government. According to the learned Senior Counsel the Central Government have got deep and pervasive control over the affairs of the CBSE. The schools affiliated to the CBSE are under the strict control and guidance of the said Board. Therefore, it should be taken that the said schools are also under the control of the Central Government. Therefore, the appropriate Government which could have issued a notification in the nature of Ext.P1 in relation to schools affiliated to CBSE is the Central Government. So, the notification Ext.P1 is issued without jurisdiction. The learned Senior Counsel also relied on the decision of this Court in Spencer & Company Ltd., WPC No.5986/08 and connected cases - 10 - Ernakulam v. E.S.I. Corporation, Trichur, 1989 (2) ILR 360. In support of his submission, the learned Senior Counsel brought to our notice the observation of this Court that State has no connection with CBSE schools, in the said decision. 9. Sri.P.M. Pareeth, learned counsel submitted that in view of Ext.R1 (a) amendment modifying the coverage of Ext.P1, the implementation of Ext.P1 now is arbitrary and discriminatory. If aided and public schools are left out, there is no reason why other schools should also not be excluded. 10. Smt.S.Karthika, learned counsel, referred to the order of the Five Judge Bench of the Apex Court in State of U.P. v. Jai Bir Singh (2005) 5 SCC 1, and submitted that the decision in Bangalore Water Supply and Sewerage Board's case (supra) no longer lays down the correct legal position concerning the interpretation of 'industry' as defined under Section 2(j) of the Industrial Disputes Act. WPC No.5986/08 and connected cases - 11 - 11. Sri. Benny Gervasis, learned Senior Government Pleader, supported Ext.P1 notification. According to him, the principle of ejusdem generis has no application for interpreting Section 1(5) of the ESI Act. The words “industrial, commercial and agricultural” denote different genera. There is nothing common among them. Therefore, the words 'or otherwise' used in the section should be given the widest possible meaning. Acceptance of restricted meaning will defeat the intention of the Parliament. The learned Senior Government Pleader also pointed out that decision of the Seven Judge Bench of Apex Court, reported in Bangalore Water Supply and Sewerage Board's case (supra) has clearly stated that educational institutions will come under the purview of the industry, as defined under Section 2(j) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1948. The said decision even now holds the field, though a few Benches of the Supreme Court of lesser strength have expressed the view that the said decision requires reconsideration. WPC No.5986/08 and connected cases - 12 - 12. Smt. T.D. Rajalekshmi, who appeared for the ESI Corporation, submitted that the ESI Act being a welfare legislation, the court should adopt a liberal construction of its provisions, so as to advance the object of the Act. She relied on the following decisions in support of her submissions:- M.V. Elisabeth v. Harwan Investment & Trading Pvt. Ltd., Goa AIR 1993 SC 1014, S.R. Bommai and Others v. Union of India 1994 (3) SCC 1, Commissioner of Income Tax v. K.F.C.,1992 (2) KLT 576. 13. Mr. T.V.Ajayakumar, who also appeared for the ESI Corporation, supported Ext.P1 notification. He submitted that employing the principle of ejusdem generis, the scope of the words 'or otherwise' used in Section 1(5) cannot be restricted. Widest possible meaning should be given to them, as intended by the legislature. In support of his submission, the learned counsel relied on the decisions in Basant Kumar Sarkar v. Eagle Rolling Mills Ltd., AIR 1964 SC 1260, Transport Corporation of India v. Employees Insurance WPC No.5986/08 and connected cases - 13 - Corporation, 2000 (1) SCC 332, Smt.Lila Vati Bai v. State of Bombay, AIR 1957 SC 521, Sundar Paper Box Co. v. State of Orissa, 1977 Lab.I.C. 1213, Mumbai Kamgar Sabha v. State of Maharashtra, 1991 Lab.I.C. 1206, Physical Research Laboratory v. K.G.Sharma (1997) 4 SCC 257, E.S.I. Corporation v. Hyderabad Race Club, (2004) 6 SCC 191, and Parakh Food Limited v. State of U.P., 2008 (4) SCC 584. 14. We have gone through the relevant statutory provisions and also the decisions cited at the Bar and other materials on record. Section 1 (5) of the ESI Act reads as follows: “1(5) The appropriate Government may, in consultation with the corporation and where the appropriate Government is a State Government, with the approval of the Central Government after giving six months' notice of its intention of so doing by notification in the Official Gazette, extend the provisions of this Act or any of them, to WPC No.5986/08 and connected cases - 14 - any other establishment or class of establishments, industrial, commercial, agricultural or otherwise: Provided that where the provisions of this Act have been brought into force in any part of a State, the said provisions shall stand extended to any such establishment or class of establishments within that part if the provisions have already been extended to similar establishment or class of establishments in another part of that State.” (emphasis supplied) Following the procedure prescribed in the above sub-section, the appropriate Government can extend the provisions of the Act “to any other establishment or class of establishments, industrial, commercial, agricultural or otherwise”. The point to be answered is, whether the above provision empowers the appropriate Government to extend the provisions of the Act to educational institutions. A plain reading of the above provision leaves no doubt in our mind, that the appropriate Government can do that. No direct authority of the Apex Court on this point WPC No.5986/08 and connected cases - 15 - has been brought to our notice, but there are a few decisions of other High Courts directly in point. 15. The Allahabad High Court in Maharishi Shiksha Sansthan, New Delhi v. State of U.P., 2009 (1) A.L.J. 654, upheld the notification under Section 1(5), covering educational institutions. The relevant portion of the said judgment reads as follows: “6. In my opinion, the word “otherwise” is of wide amplitude covering all establishments including educational institutions. 7. In this case, learned counsel for the respondents has cited an authority of this Court and another authority of Rajasthan High Court, which are quoted below. 1.Civil Misc. Writ Petition No.44821 of 2008, St.Joseph's College and others (decided on 1-9-2008) 2. S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.2291 of 2005, Bhopalwal Arya Higher Secondary Managing Committee, Sriganganagar v. State of Rajasthan and others (decided on 12-5-2008). WPC No.5986/08 and connected cases - 16 - 8. In the said authorities, it has been held that educational institution can be brought under the umbrella of the Act. Moreover, the Act is beneficial legislation and in case of any ambiguity it requires to be interpreted in favour of those, who are to be benefitted by the application of the Act. 9. In this regard, reference may also made to the Supreme Court authority reported in AIR 2004 SC 3972 'E.S.I. Corpn. v. Hyderabad Race Club' and the authorities mentioned therein. In the said authority, it was held that race club was establishment and could be brought under Act through notice under the aforesaid provision. 10. Learned counsel for the petitioner has argued that the word 'establishment' must have some relation with factory and educational institution is not even remotely connected with the activity, which is carried out in factories. This argument is not tenable for the reason that under Section 1(5), there is no such restriction. Thereafter, learned counsel for the petitioner has argued that the aforesaid sub-section suffers from the vice of excessive delegation as the WPC No.5986/08 and connected cases - 17 - power to bring any establishment under the Act has been conferred upon the Government without providing any guidelines. 11. This argument is also not acceptable. The purpose of the Act is to confer certain benefits upon the employees and employees of any establishment may deserve such benefits. This question has also been considered in the Supreme Court authority reported in AIR 1987 SC 1166, “Hindu Jea Band, M/s.Jaipur v. Regional Director, Employees' State Insurance Corporation, Jaipur.” Learned counsel has, in the end, argued that in the case of judgment of St.Joseph's College's case (supra), notification was not challenged. However, in the said authority, it was argued that the said provision could not be applied on minority educational institutions. In the said judgment, it was held that educational institution including minority educational institution could be brought under the Act.”. 16. Interpreting the words “or otherwise” in Section 1(5) of the E.S.I Act, The Bombay High Court in Mumbai Kamgar Sabha v. State of Maharashtra, 1991 WPC No.5986/08 and connected cases - 18 - LAB.I.C. 1206, held as follows: “...The government can extend the Act or any portion thereof. It can do so vide any other establishment (in contra distinction to factories other than seasonal factories) or class of establishments. The class contemplated may be industrial, commercial, agricultural or otherwise. That there can be establishments of a character other than industrial, commercial or agricultural cannot be disputed. An example of this a travel agency. That being the position, it will be erroneous to hold that the words “or otherwise” are to be read in a restricted sense and take their colour from the three words preceding them. These preceding words cannot supply the idea of a genus. Indeed the genus lies in the words “any other establishment or class of establishment”. The three words which follow each represent a specie. But the legislature did not want to restrict the operation of the Act to these 3 species and therefore used the catch-all words “or otherwise”.”. WPC No.5986/08 and connected cases - 19 - We are of the opinion that the view taken by the Allahabad High Court regarding the extension of the provisions of the ESI Act to educational institutions and the interpretation given to the words “or otherwise” by the Bombay High Court lay down the correct legal position. 17. We hold that the notification under Section