IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC TUESDAY, THE 31ST MARCH 2009 / 10TH CHAITHRA 1931 WP(C).No. 10245 of 2009(A) -------------------------- PETITIONER(S): ------------------- 1. HINDUSTAN ORGANIC CHEMICALS WORKERS UNION, AMBALAMUGAL, KOCHI, REPRESENTED BY GENERAL SECRETARY, SRI.K.S.PRAKASAN. 2. HINDUSTAN ORGANIC STAFF AND WORKERS UNION, AMBALAMUGAL, KOCHI, REPRESENTED BY SRI.K.K.PAVITHRARAJAN. 3. HINDUSTAN ORGANIC CHEMICALS EMPLOYEES UNION, AMBALAMUGAL, KOCHI, REPRESENTED BY SRI.K.K.RAJAN. BY ADV. SRI.M.RAJASEKHARAN NAYAR SRI.RADHIKA RAJASEKHARAN P. SMT.ANILA PETER SMT.K.N.RAJANI RESPONDENT(S): -------------------- 1. UNION OF INDIA, REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY, MINISTRY OF LABOUR, NEW DELHI. 2. EMPLOYEES STATE INSURANCE CORPORATION, REPRESENTED BY REGIONAL MANAGER, THRISSUR. 3. HINDUSTAN ORGANIC CHEMICALS, REPRESENTED BY ITS CHAIRMAN AND MANAGING DIRECTOR, AMBALAMUGAL, KOCHI - 682 302. SRI.P.PARAMESWARAN NAIR, ASG SRI.GEORGE KURUVILLA,CGSC SRI.P.SANKARANKUTTY NAIR,SC, ESI SRI.E.K.MADHAVAN, SC FOR HOC THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 31/03/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: ANTONY DOMINIC, J. ================ W.P.(C) NO. 10245 OF 2009 (A) ===================== Dated this the 31st day of March, 2009 J U D G M E N T Petitioners represent the employees of the 3rd respondent, a Government Company. In this writ petition, they claim exemption from the provisions of the Employees State Insurance Act. 2. Going by the records produced, it would appear that by different orders passed periodically, exemption was enjoyed by the 3rd respondent and its employees till 30/9/2008 and the last order of exemption is Ext.P1. It would appear that claiming exemption for the subsequent period, both the petitioners and the 3rd respondent have filed Ext.P5 and the application is pending consideration of the 1st respondent. In the meanwhile, taking advantage of the situation that as at present no exemption is granted, the 2nd respondent is pressurising the 3rd respondent for the implementation of the provisions of the Employees State Insurance Act and therefore this writ petition is filed. 3. Admittedly, Ext.P5 application for exemption as provided under Sections 87 and 91 of the Act is pending WPC 10245/09 :2 : consideration of the 1st respondent and if that be so, it is only appropriate that the 1st respondent considers the said application. 4. Therefore, the writ petition is disposed of with the following directions. (1) That the 1st respondent shall consider Ext.P5 and pass orders thereon. This shall be done, as expeditiously as possible, at any rate within 3 months of production of a copy of this judgment. (2) In the meanwhile, there will be stay of implementation of the scheme under the ESI Act, on condition that the 3rd respondent shall deduct contribution that is payable by its employees and keep the same in a separate account and if ultimately exemption is allowed, the amount deducted shall be returned to the respective workmen. On the other hand, if exemption is not allowed, along with the contribution payable by them, the same shall be remitted to the 2nd respondent immediately thereafter. ANTONY DOMINIC, JUDGE Rp