Madrasdated High Court · 2025

WP No. 12741 of 20125.M/s.Ninety Nine Beedi Factory(formerly S.P.Abdul Rahim Son) Rep. By Its Mr.K.Azar No.8, Commissary Bazaar Vellore 632 004.6.M/s.A.Habeedur Rahman SonsS Beedi Manufacturers Rep. By Its Partner Mr.A.Mohammed Ashraf 244/245, Santhapet, Gudiyatham, Vellore District.7.M/s.Abdul Samad Sahib And SonsSamad Beedi Factory, Rep. By S.Abdul Wahid, No.46, Big Alipuram Street, Vellore.Petitioner(s)Vs1. The Government Of TamilnaduRep. By Its Principal Secretary, Labour And Employment (l1) Department, Fort St. George, Chennai-92.The Regional DirectorEmployees State Insurance Corproation, Panchdeeo Bhawan 143, Sterling Road, Chennai-34Respondent(s)WP No. 12593 of 2012:1. M/s.K.Abdul Aleem SahebSons Aleem Beedi Works, Rep. By Its Partner Mr.S.A.Zubeirullah, 107 B And C, Cna Road, Khadirpet, Vaniyabadi 635 751. https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis WP No. 12741 of 20122.M/s.V.Abdul Jabbar And SonsGoat Mark Beedis, Rep. By Partner, V.I.Mohammed Ghouse No.186, Chitteri Road, Ariyur, Vellore 632 010.3.M/s.V.K.Abdul Jabbar SahibSon 100 Mark Beedis Rep. By Its Partner Mr.V.R.Anwar Basha, No.1/128, Pillair Koil Street, Virudhampet, Vellore 632 006.4.M/s.K.Abdul Azeez Sahib And Sons10 Mark Beedi Rep. By Its Proprietor Mr.K.Anwar Basha, No.153, Chunnambukara Street, Konavatta, Vellore.5.M/s.Ninety Nine Beedi Factory(formerly S.P.Abdul Rahim Son) Rep. By Its Mr.K.Azar No.8, Commissary Bazaar Vellore 632 0046.M/s.A.Habeedur Rahman SonsS Beedi Manufacturers Rep. By Its Partner Mr.A.Mohammed Ashraf 244/245, Santhapet, Gudiyatham, Vellore District.7.M/s.Abdul Samad Sahib And SonsSamad Beedi Factory, Rep. By S.Abdul Wahid, No.46, Big Alipuram Street, Vellore.Petitioner(s) https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis WP No. 12741 of 2012Vs1. The Government Of TamilnaduRep. By Its Principal Secretary, Labour And Employment (l1) Department, Fort St. George, Chennai-9.2.The Regional DirectorEmployees State Insurance Corproation, Panchdeeo Bhawan 143, Sterling Road, Chennai-34.Respondent(s)PRAYER in WP No. 12741 of 2012: This petition is filed under Article 226 of Constitution of India, to issue a writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, Calling for the records of the 1st respondent in G.O.(D) No.339 Labour and Employment (L1) Department dated 8.11.2011 and quash the same as illegal, arbitrary, without the authority of law and consequently direct the 1st respondent to accord the petitioners, renewal of the exemption from the provisions of the ESI Act, 1948 for the period between 1.4.2011 and 31.3.2012.PRAYER in WP No. 12593 of 2012: This petition is filed under Article 226 of Constitution of India, to issue a writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, Calling for the records of the 1st respondent in G.O.(D) No.39 Labaour amd Employment (L1) Department dated 08.02.2012 and quash the same as illegal, arbitrary, without the authority of law and consequently direct the 1st respondent to accord the petitioners, renewal of the exemption from the provisions of the ESI Act 1948 for the period between 01.04.2010 and 31.03.2011. https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis WP No. 12741 of 2012For Petitioner(s):M/s.BFS LegalFor Respondent(s):Mr.M.Murali, SGP for R1Mrs.S.Jayakumari For R2COMMON ORDERQuestioning the correctness of the rejection of their request for grant of exemption from the provisions of the Employees' State Insurance Act, 1948 under Section 87 to 90 read with Section 91-A, the present writ petitions have been filed.2. As the issue involved in both the writ petitions are the one and same, all the writ petitions are disposed of vide this common order. Brief Facts:3. The petitioners, who are engaged in the manufacture of beedi 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 petitioners have narrated 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 petitioners have also stated the challenge made to the inclusion of beedi workers under the https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis WP No. 12741 of 2012Employees 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 petitioners approached the Government of Tamil Nadu in the year 2002 seeking for exemption from the provisions of the Act for various members. The Government also considering the request made by the petitioners, granted exemption from the year 1999 onwards. The petitioners have stated the various periods when they enjoyed exemption from Employees State Insurance Act. It is seen that from 01.04.2010 and 31.03.2011 by way of eight Government Orders, the petitioners were granted exemption. 5. While so, 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 petitioners sought exemption from 25.11.2019 and 24.11.2020, the same was rejected by the Government vide the impugned order. Challenging the same, the present writ petitions has been filed.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 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis WP No. 12741 of 2012exploiting 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. 8. 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 petitioners. The Government had taken the stand that just because the petitioners 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 petitioners. 9. The learned 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 counsel submitted that while rejecting the request made by the petitioners herein the Government had indeed granted exemption to two other beedi manufacturers. 11. The learned counsel therefore submitted that the Government had https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis WP No. 12741 of 2012acted in a biased manner. The learned counsel therefore prayed this Court to quash the Government orders and allow the writ petitions. 12. The learned Government Advocate 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 counsel therefore submitted that the impugned order do not 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 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis WP No. 12741 of 2012Act, 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 indicate 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 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis WP No. 12741 of 2012computerization involving networking all ESI Medical /Non-medical institutions, taking place in ESIC, the insured persons / his family can avail treatment 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 companies 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 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis WP No. 12741 of 2012the 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, in various places. 23. 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 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis WP No. 12741 of 2012under 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. 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 contribution 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.06-02-2025RliIndex:Yes/NoSpeaking/Non-speaking orderInternet:YesNeutral Citation:Yes/No https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis WP No. 12741 of 2012To1.The Government Of TamilnaduRep. By Its Principal Secretary, Labour And Employment (l1) Department, Fort St. George, Chennai-92.The Regional DirectorEmployees State Insurance Corproation, Panchdeeo Bhawan 143, Sterling Road, Chennai-34 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis WP No. 12741 of 2012M.DHANDAPANI J.rliWP No. 12741 of 2012 &WP NO. 12593 OF 201206-02-2025