1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JAIPUR BENCH, JAIPUR ORDER S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.9989/2008 {The Rajasthan Tourism Development Corporation & Another Versus The Employees State Insurance Corporation & Another} Date of Order :: 15th September, 2008 PRESENT HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NARENDRA KUMAR JAIN Mr. Dinesh Yadav for the petitioners BY THE COURT: Heard learned counsel for the petitioners. 2. Vide order dated 16th January, 2007 (Annexure-2), the Employees State Insurance Corporation informed the petitioner to comply with the provisions of the Employees State Insurance Act, 1948, but neither the said order was challenged on the ground that the said 'Act' itself is not applicable on the petitioners nor the compliance was made. Again vide order dated 3rd March, 2008 (Annexure-6), the Employees State Insurance Corporation informed the petitioners that neither the order dated 16th January, 2007 has been complied with by depositing a sum of Rs. 2 2,49,397/- for the period from April 2004 to September, 2006 nor any exemption has been sought under Section 87/88 of the Act of 1948, therefore, a last opportunity was granted to comply with the said order by depositing the amount, otherwise a legal action will be initiated. Now the final order dated 11th August, 2008 (Annexure-7) has been sent by the Corporation to the petitioners to comply with the earlier orders. Being aggrieved with the same, the present writ petition has been preferred on behalf of the petitioners. 3. The learned counsel for the petitioners contended that the respondents- Corporation has no jurisdiction to initiate the proceedings under the provisions of Employees State Insurance Act, 1948, on the ground that Corporation has adopted Rajasthan Civil Services Medical Rules, 1970, therefore, impugned order dated 11th August, 2008 is liable to be quashed. 4. I have considered the submissions of learned counsel for the petitioners. The provisions of Employees State Insurance Act are applicable by its own force. The State 3 Insurance Corporation informed the petitioners vide letter dated 16th January, 2007 that the petitioners are liable to comply with the provisions of the Act by depositing employer as well as employee share, both, under Section 39 readwith Section 40 of the Act of 1948. The petitioners are liable for both shares, which come to Rs. 2,49,357/- for the period from April, 2004 to September, 2006. A reply was given by Manager of petitioner no.2 to the effect that Labour Department, Government of Rajasthan has granted relaxation to Rajasthan Tourism Development Corporation's 11 units from the provisions of Act while exercising its powers under Section 88 of the Act, therefore, the same relaxation should be made applicable on petitioners also. It was also contended that petitioners have already adopted Rajasthan Civil Services Medical Rules, 1970, therefore, the provisions of Act of 1948 should not be made applicable. It appears that Rajasthan Tourism Development Corporation Limited is altogether different from the petitioner no.2 i.e. Tourist Hotel and in case any relaxation has been granted 4 to Rajasthan Tourism Development Corporation by the State Government, then the same is not applicable automatically on the petitioner – hotel. If the petitioner wanted a relaxation from the applicability of the Act of 1948, then it should have filed a separate application before the competent Government to grant relaxation under Section 88 of the Act as granted to Rajasthan Tourism Development Corporation Limited, but the said prayer was not made and in these circumstances till date no exemption or relaxation from the applicability of the Act has been granted to the petitioners. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioners also referred the office order dated 22nd April, 2003 issued by the Rajasthan Tourism Development Corporation Limited (Annexure-1) to show that medical facilities as per Rajasthan Civil Services Medical Rules, 1970 has been extended to the employees of R.T.D.C. It is relevant to mention that there are various types of employees employed in the hotel, whereas this medical facility as per Rules of 1970 has been extended only in respect of those employees who are employees 5 of the R.T.D.C., who are entitled for medical facilities as per Rules of 1970, meaning thereby those employees who are not entitled for the medical facilities as per Rules of 1970, the medical facilities have not been extended for them. SO far as the provisions of the Act of 1948 are concerned, they are applicable on employees of the petitioner- hotel. It is relevant to mention that coverage letter has been issued in the name of M/s. Tourist Hotel, M.I. Road, Jaipur, whereas the writ petition has been preferred on behalf of petitioner no.1 - The Rajasthan Tourism Development Corporation. As per the reply of petitioner – hotel, it appears that 11 units of Rajasthan Tourism Development Corporation were granted exemption by the Government from the applicability of the Act, but no specific order has been passed in respect of the petitioner - hotel. Even otherwise, the impugned order dated 11th August, 2008 (Annexure-7) shows that again an opportunity has been granted to the petitioners to comply with the earlier orders relating to period from April, 2004 to September, 2006 and in case the petitioners 6 want to show something, then they should appear before the concerned authority, therefore, it is still open for the petitioners to appear and explain the position before the respondent – Employees State Insurance Corporation or respondent no.2. 6. In view of above, I do not find any merit in the contention of learned counsel for the petitioners and this writ petition being devoid of merit is liable to be dismissed and is hereby dismissed in limine. (NARENDRA KUMAR JAIN),J. DK