Madrasdated High Court · 2025

7WP No. 76 of 2022 etc & batch3.The Additional Commissioner (Bft)Employees State Insurance Corporation , head Quarters Office, Panchdeep Bhawan, C.I.G. Marg, New Delhi- 110 012.4.The Assistant DirectorEmployees State Insurance Corporation, Sub- Regional Office, Salai Street, Vannarpettai, Tirunelveli- 627 003.5.The Recovery OfficerEmployees State Insurance Corporation, Sub- Regional Office, Salai Street, Vannarpettai, Tirunelveli- 627 003.6.Tirunelveli District Beedi WorkersFeeration Union, Rep by its secretary, No.19 Nehruji Road, Melapalayam, Tirunelveli-627 005.Respondent(s)WP No. 76 of 2022PRAYERCalling for the records of the first respondent in proceedings G. O. (D) No. 237 for the period 25.11.2019 to 24.11.2020 and quash its order dated 16.6.2021 and consequently direct the 1st respondent to grant exemption from the provisions of ESI Act to the members of the petitioners association for the period 25.11.2019 to 24.11.2020 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 8WP No. 76 of 2022 etc & batchWP No. 28475 of 2021PRAYERCalling for the records of the first Respondent in proceedings G.O. (D) No.240 for the period 22.05.2019 to 21.05.2020 and quash its order dated 16.06.2021 and consequently direct the 1st Respondent to grant exemption from the provisions of ESI Act to the Petitioner for the period 22.05.2019 to 21.05.2020.WP No. 28480 of 2021PRAYERCalling for the records of the first Respondent in proceedings G.O. (D) No.241 for the period 22.05.2020 to 21.05.2021 and quash its order dated 16.06.2021 and consequently direct the 1st Respondent to grant exemption from the provisions of ESI Act to the Petitioner for the period 22.05.2020 to 21.05.2021.WP No. 77 of 2022PRAYERCalling for the records of the first respondent in proceedings G. O. (D) No. 238 for the period 25.11.2020 to 24.11.2021 and quash its order dated 16.6.2021 and consequently direct the 1st respondent to grant exemption from the provisions of ESI Act to the members of the petitioners association for the period 25.11.2020 to 24.11.2021WP No. 28482 of 2021PRAYERCalling for the records of the first Respondent in proceedings G.O. (D) No.379 for the period 01.06.2021 to 31.05.2022 and quash its order dated 27.08.2021 and consequently direct the 1st Respondent to grant exemption from the provisions of ESI Act to the Petitioner for the period 01.06.2021 to 31.05.2022.In all W.P'sFor Petitioner(s):MR. P. Ragunathan for M/S. T..S.Gopalan & Co For Respondent(s):Mr. K. Surendren, Agp For R1 Ms. S. Jayakumari Sc., For R2 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 9WP No. 76 of 2022 etc & batchTo R5 R6 - Not Ready Notice ORDERQuestioning the correctness of the rejection of their request for grant of exemption from the provisions of the Employees' State Insurance Act, 1948 under Sections 87 and 88 read with Section 91-A, the present writ petitions have been filed.2. As the issue involved in these writ petitions are the same, all the writ petitions are disposed of vide this common order. WP No.77 of 2022 is taken as the lead case.Brief Facts:WP No.77 of 20223. The petitioner Beedi Manufactures Association has filed this petition aggrieved by the rejection of the request to grant exemption to the beedi manufacturers from the provisions of Employees State Insurance Act. In the affidavit filed in support of the writ petition, the petitioner association has https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 10WP No. 76 of 2022 etc & batchnarrated the history of beedi production in India and the earliest laws concerning beedi workers, which culminated in the passing of Employees State Insurance Act in the year 1948 and how various types of cottage industries were brought under one umbrella of Employees State Insurance Act. The petitioner has also stated the challenge made to the inclusion of beedi workers under the Employees State Insurance Act before this Court in the year 1982 in W.P.No.9196 of 1982 etc. and batch and the dismissal of those writ petitions. In short as of today, the beedi workers are brought under the ambit of Employees State Insurance Act. 4. While so, the petitioner approached the Government of Tamil Nadu in the year 2002 seeking for exemption from the provisions of the Act for various members of the association. The Government also considering the request made by the association, granted exemption from the year 1999 onwards. The petitioner has stated the various periods when they enjoyed exemption from Employees State Insurance Act. It is seen that from 01.11.1999 to 31.12.2009 by way of eight Government Orders, the petitioners were granted exemption. https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 11WP No. 76 of 2022 etc & batch5. Whileso, the Government introduced Employees State Insurance Amendment Act, 2010 by which it was provided that any exemption shall be made only prospectively. Hitherto the Government was in the habit of granting exemption retrospectively. The petitioner association sought exemption from 25.11.2019 and 24.11.2020, the sme was rejected by the Government vide the impugned order. Challenging the same, the present writ petitions has been filed.6. Barring the period of exemption sought for, the contents of the affidavit are verbatim the same in other connected writ petitions.7. The Government of Tamil Nadu through the first respondent had filed a common counter affidavit in the above writ petitions. The long and short of the contents in the counter affidavit is that the owners of beedi / factories were exploiting the innocence of beedi workers and the beedi workers were working under a very shaddy and pathetic environment without any safety gear or health precautions. https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 12WP No. 76 of 2022 etc & batch8. Keeping in view the contention of the beedi workers and after getting necessary reports from the authorities concerned, the Government had thought it fit to reject the requests made by the association. The Government had taken the stand that just because the association enjoyed exemption for certain period in the past, they cannot expect exemption for the future period also. The counter further stated that there is no automatic renewal of exemption retrospectively. The company justified the rejection of the request made by the association. 9. The leraned counsel for the petitioners contended that the workers were taken care of by the beedi manufacturers and they have their own corpus fund to meet the medical and other needs of their workers. The learned counsel submitted that having granted exemption for almost eight different periods the Government was not correct in rejecting their request. 10. The learned cousenl submitted that while rejecting the request made by the petitioners herein the Government had indeed granted exemption to two https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 13WP No. 76 of 2022 etc & batchother beedi manufacturers. 11. The learned counsel therefore submitted that the Government had acted in a biased manner. The learned counsel therefore prayed this Court to quash the Government orders and allow the writ petitions. 12. The learned Additional Government Pleader appearing for the Government / first respondent Labour Department contended that though the beedi manufacturers had their own association and claim that they have funds to meet any emergent situation requiring medical or other needs of the workers in effect no genuine help was provided to the workers and the authorities are inspected the working condition of beedi workers and found that they were working in a very danger environment. Considering all these facts and also the amendment made to the Employees State Insurance Act the Government though it fit to reject the request made by the petitioners. 13. The learned cousenl therefore submitted that the impugned order do https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 14WP No. 76 of 2022 etc & batchnot require any interference and the same may be sustained considering the welfare of the beedi workers.14. Heard the learned counsel on both sides and perused the materials placed on record.15. As per Section 87 of the ESI Act, 1948, exemption may be granted only if the employees in factories or establishments are otherwise in receipt of benefits substantially similar or superior to the benefits provided under the ESI Act, 1948, as amended from time to time.16. The Government order has quoted the remarks sent by the Assistant Director (Inspection) Employees State Insurance Corporation, Chennai, in the impugned order. 17. The Assistant Director has stated that a scrutiny of the benefits provided for by the employer to those provided for under ESI Act would https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 15WP No. 76 of 2022 etc & batchindicate that the benefits provided by the former are neither similar nor superior to those provided under the ESI Act. Even though the beedi workers are governed by the welfare measures under the Central Beedi Workers Welfare Act, the ambit and scope of the ESI Act can be said to be wide and comprehensive and not comparable. The ceiling limit for wages, in order to avail any of the benefits provided by the employer is Rs.3,500/- per month. Any worker drawing wages above this limit is not eligible for the benefits provided by the employer.18. He has further stated that the employees scheme of benefits cannot be said to be as comprehensive as that of the ESI Scheme, which covers both the economic and physical distresses under all foreseeable contingencies through full medical care not only to the insured person but also to their eligible family members and adequate cash compensation with the aid of its own massive infrastructure established across the country. With the country wide computerization involving networking all ESI Medical /Non-medical institutions, taking place in ESIC, the insured persons / his family can avail https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 16WP No. 76 of 2022 etc & batchtreatment and enjoy the benefit with the help of 'e-pehchan' certificate. The grant of the proposed exemption in the absence of superiority / similarity of benefits, though for a year in prospect, the very spirit and purpose of the exemption provisions get diluted and even defeated.19. The Beedi Workers' Welfare Act is applicable only to the Beedi workers operating from Home (also known as Home Workers). It is pertinent to note that the office employees and the Godown employees and other auxiliary workers of the Beedi Companies are denied benefits under the Beedi Workers Welfare Act. If Exemption is granted, this category of workers will be denied benefits under both the Beedi Workers Welfare Act as well as ESI Act.20. In the view of the above reasons the Assistant Director (Inspection), ESIC had requested the Government decline exemption.21. The Commissioner of Labour, has stated that the Joint Commissioner of Labour, in his remarks has stated that though the employees of Beedi https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 17WP No. 76 of 2022 etc & batchcompanies have given no objection for granting of exemption from the provision of ESI Act 1948, the employees are not covered under any Health Insurance Scheme Policy. Hence, the Joint Commissioner of Labour, Tirunelveli has recommended that the request of the Beedi Companies for exemption from the provisions of ESI Act is declined.22. The Government had examined the benefits by provided to the employees as claimed in the applications with that of the benefits given by the Employees' State Insurance Corporation. From the comparative study, it is found that most of the benefits provided by the ESI Corporation to the employees are superior in the aspects of sickness benefit, extended sickness benefit, enhanced sickness benefit, maternity benefit, medical bonus, unemployment allowance, coverage of disabled person drawing wages upto Rs.25,000/-, funeral expenses and vocational/ rehabilitation allowance, better than the benefits provided by the South Tamil Nadu Beedi Manufacturers Association, Tirunelveli. https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 18WP No. 76 of 2022 etc & batch23. As per section 87 of the ESI Act, 1948 exemption may be granted only if the employees in factories or establishments are otherwise in receipt of benefits substantially similar or superior to the benefits provided under the ESI Act, 1948. On inspection of the factory by the Labour Department officials, it has been observed that no medical facilities are being provided by the management to the workers and the Commissioner of Labour has recommended for the rejection of the applications seeking exemptions from the ESI Act, 1948. accordingly, the Government has rejected the request made by the petitioners. This Court does not find any illegality or infirmity in the order passed by the Government warranting interference by this Court exercising its jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.24. This Court is convinced that the facilities covered under the Employees State Insurance Act are superior to the facilities claimed to be provided by the beedi workers association. Welfare of the workers is paramount. The state cannot make any compromise on the safety and security of the beedi workers. The attempt of the petitioners seem to be to avoid their part of https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 19WP No. 76 of 2022 etc & batchcontribution to the employees. 25. This Court is in complete agreement with the reasons stated in the Government order while rejecting the request made by the petitioners.26. Hence, the writ petitions fail and the same are dismissed. There will be no order as to costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions are closed.29-04-2025RAPIndex:Yes/NoSpeaking/Non-speaking orderInternet:YesNeutral Citation:Yes/No https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 20WP No. 76 of 2022 etc & batchTo1.The Government of Tamil NaduRep by its Secretary, Labour Welfare and Skill Development (L1) Department, Secretariat, Fort St. George, Chennai - 9.2.The Regional DirectorEmployees State Insurance Corporation, No. 143, Sterling Road, Nungambakkam, Chennai - 34.3.The Additional Commissioner (Bft)Employees State Insurance Corporation, Head Quarters Office, Panchdeep Bhawan, C.I.G Marg, New Delhi - 110 012.4.The Assistant DirectorEmployees State Insurance Corporation, Sub Regional Office, Salai Street, Vannarpettai, Tirunelveli - 3.5.The Recovery OfficerEmployees State Insurance Corporation, Sub Regional Office, Salai Street, Vannarpettai, Tirunelveli - 3.6.Tirunelveli District Beedi WorkersFederation Union, Rep by its Secretary, No. 19, Nehruji Road, Melapalayam, Tirunelveli - 5. https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 21WP No. 76 of 2022 etc & batchM.DHANDAPANI J.RAPWP No. 76 of 2022AND WMP NO. 30076 OF 2021,WMP NO. 30068 OF 2021,WP NO. 28475 OF 2021,WP NO. 28480 OF 2021,WMP NO. 30073 OF 2021,WMP NO. 72 OF 2022,WP NO. 77 OF 2022,WP NO. 28482 OF 2021,WMP NO. 71 OF 202229-04-2025