High Court · 2025

1WP No. 21731 of 2014IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRASDATED: 05-03-2025CORAMTHE HONOURABLE MR JUSTICE M.DHANDAPANIWP No. 21731 of 2014ANDWMP NO. 9402 OF 2018 and M.P.Nos.1 to 3 of 20141. M/s.S.K.Abdul Aleem Saheb SonsAleem Beedi Works, Rep. by its Partner mr.S.A.Zubeirullah, 107, B and C, CNA Road, Kahdirpet, Vaniyambadi-635 751.Petitioner(s)Vs1. The Government of Tamil NaduRep. by its Principal Secretary, Labour and Employment (L1) Department, Fort St. George, Chennai-9.2.The Regional DirectorEmployees State Insurance Corporation, Panchdeep Bhavan, 143, Sterling Road, Chennai-34.Respondent(s)PRAYERCalling for the records of the 1st respondent in G.O (D) No.40 Labour and https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 2WP No. 21731 of 2014Employment (L1) Department dated 9.2.2012 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 1.1.2012 and 31.12.2012For Petitioner(s):Mr.Rishaab RejainM/s.BFS LegalFor Respondent(s):M/s.C.V.RamachandramurthyFor R2Mr.K.Surendran, AGP For R1ORDERQuestioning the correctness of the rejection of its 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 petition has been filed by the petitioner.Brief Facts:2. The petitioner Beedi Manufacturer has filed this petition aggrieved by the rejection of its request to grant exemption it from the provisions of Employees State Insurance Act for the period between 01.01.2012 to https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 3WP No. 21731 of 201431.12.2012. In the affidavit filed in support of the writ petition, the petitioner has traced the history of beedi production in India and the earliest laws concerning beedi workers and other workers, which culminated in the passing of the Employees State Insurance Act in the year 1948, and how various types of cottage industries were brought under one umbrella of the Employees State Insurance Act. 3. 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 petitioner sought exemption from 01.01.2012 to 31.12.2012. The same was rejected by the Government vide the impugned order. Challenging the same, the present writ petition has been filed.4. The Government of Tamil Nadu through the first respondent had filed a counter affidavit in the above writ petition. The long and short of the contents in the counter affidavit is that the owners of beedi / factories were exploiting the https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 4WP No. 21731 of 2014innocence of beedi workers, and the beedi workers were working under a very pathetic environment without any safety gear or health precautions. Keeping in view the condition 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 petitioner. The Government had taken the stand that just because the petitioner enjoyed exemption for certain period in the past, it cannot expect exemption for the all the period. The counter further stated that there is no automatic renewal of exemption retrospectively. The Government justified the rejection of the request made by the petitioner. 5. The learned counsel for the petitioner 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 in the past, the Government was not correct in rejecting their request. The learned counsel therefore prayed this Court to quash the Government orders and allow the writ petition. https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 5WP No. 21731 of 20146. 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 inspected the working condition of beedi workers and found that they were working in a very dangerous environment. Considering all these facts and also the amendment made to the Employees State Insurance Act, the Government thought it fit to reject the request made by the petitioner. 7. The learned counsel therefore submitted that the impugned order does not require any interference and the same may be sustained considering the welfare of the beedi workers.8. Heard the learned counsel on both sides and perused the materials available on record. https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 6WP No. 21731 of 20149. 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.10. The Government order has made a comparative study of the benefits claimed to be provided by the petitioner and the actual benefits available under the ESI Act. The study covered areas like sickness benefit, disablement benefit, dependant benefit, maternity benefit, medical benefit, funeral expenses, unemployment allowance, rehabilitation allowance, confinement expenses, vocational rehabilitation allowance and other benefits and found that the Employees' State Insurance scheme is superior to the one provided by the petitioner management.11. On an analysis of the above, the Government concluded that the beedi workers are to benefit from the provisions of Employees' State Insurance Scheme and shot down the request made by the petitioner seeking exemption. https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 7WP No. 21731 of 201412. 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. 13. 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.14. This Court is convinced that the facilities covered under the Employees State Insurance Act are superior to the facilities claimed to be provided by petitioner. 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 petitioner seem to be to avoid its part of contribution to the employees. https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 8WP No. 21731 of 201415. This Court is in complete agreement with the reasons stated in the Government order while rejecting the request made by the petitioner.16. Hence, the writ petition fails and the same is dismissed. There will be no order as to costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions are closed. 05.03.2025RAPIndex:Yes/NoSpeaking/Non-speaking orderInternet:YesNeutral Citation:Yes/No https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 9WP No. 21731 of 2014To1.The Principal Secretary The Government of Tamil Nadu Labour and Employment (L1) Department, Fort St. George, Chennai-9.2.The Regional DirectorEmployees State Insurance Corporation, Panchdeep Bhavan, 143, Sterling Road, Chennai-34. https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 10WP No. 21731 of 2014M.DHANDAPANI J.RAPWP No. 21731 of 201405-03-2025