Hindustan Organic Chemicals Workers Vs. Union of India - Court Judgment

Excerpt:

[huluvadi g. ramesh j.] this criminal appeal is fded u/s.378(4) cr.pc praying to set aside the judgment and order of acquittal recorded by the jmfc-iii. mysore in cc no.250/08, thereby acquitting the respondent/accused of the offence p/u/s. 138 of the ni act......issue a writ of mandamus commanding the first respondent to pass orders on ext.p3 under chapter viii of the employees state insurance act, 1948. in fact, ext.p3 is an application submitted by the employer, the third respondent for exemption from the provisions under section 88 read with section 91a of the employees state insurance act. there is no provision under the act that enables the petitioners herein who only represent the employees under the third respondent, to seek exemption in terms of the above mentioned provisions. 2. i have heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, sri.harikrishnan, learned standing counsel appearing for the second respondent and sri.v.k.krishna menon, learned standing counsel appearing for the third respondent. 3. admittedly, the application for exemption under section 87 has been preferred by the third respondent and therefore, at the instance of the petitioners a writ of mandamus cannot be issued, especially when they did not have any right to seek exemption. however, taking into account the fact that the application for exemption filed by the third respondent is pending before the first respondent and that at the time of its.....

Judgment:

C.T.RAVIKUMAR, J.

W.P.(C)No.31996 of 2010

Dated 10th November, 2010

1. The petitioners trade unions who represent the employees under the third respondent filed this writ petition mainly with the prayer to issue a writ of mandamus commanding the first respondent to pass orders on Ext.P3 under Chapter VIII of the Employees State Insurance Act, 1948. In fact, Ext.P3 is an application submitted by the employer, the third respondent for exemption from the provisions under Section 88 read with Section 91A of the Employees State Insurance Act. There is no provision under the Act that enables the petitioners herein who only represent the employees under the third respondent, to seek exemption in terms of the above mentioned provisions.

2. I have heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, Sri.Harikrishnan, learned standing counsel appearing for the second respondent and Sri.V.K.Krishna Menon, learned standing counsel appearing for the third respondent.

3. Admittedly, the application for exemption under section 87 has been preferred by the third respondent and therefore, at the instance of the petitioners a writ of mandamus cannot be issued, especially when they did not have any right to seek exemption. However, taking into account the fact that the application for exemption filed by the third respondent is pending before the first respondent and that at the time of its hearing the employees could claim an opportunity of hearing this writ petition is disposed of with the following directions:-

The petitioners unions representing the employees of the third respondent shall also be afforded with an opportunity of being heard on behalf of the employees when the first respondent takes up Ext.P3 for consideration. In the meanwhile, the third respondent shall comply with the conditions mentioned in paragraph 4(2) of Ext.P1 judgment, with respect to the deduction of contribution payable by the employees and keeping it in a separate account for the purpose it was directed to be deposited.