Tenetowl LogoTenetowl
High Court of KeralaSingle JudgeWrit petitions allowed; impugned orders set asi...

Arya Vaidya Sala, Kottakkal v. State of Kerala and Others (W.P.C. Nos. 37647 of 2010; 29454 of 2011; 18456 of 2012; 6644 of 2013; 24786 of 2014; 32536 of 2017)

Case / Petition Number:WP(C) Nos. 37647/2010; 29454/2011; 18456/2012; 6644/2013; 24786/2014; 32536/2017

Case Details & Bench

Court
High Court of Kerala
Hon'ble Judges
  • P. V. Kunhikrishnan
Judgment Date
2022-11-01
Court Decision / Holding
The impugned orders Ext. P37 (37647/2010), Ext. P40 (29454/2011), Ext. P44 (18456/2012), Ext. P43 (6644/2013), Ext. P45 (24786/2014) and Ext. P47 (32536/2017) are quashed. The State is directed to reconsider the exemption applications in all these cases after giving an opportunity of hearing to the petitioners and the respondents, expeditiously, within three months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this judgment. The Government shall consult the ESI Corporation, and if necessary hear them, and communicate revised orders to all parties. Until such orders are passed, status quo must be maintained. The court endorses the view that exemption under Section 87 can be exercised prospectively; it rejects a blanket reading that disallows any exemption from the date of the application, and it requires a detailed, speaking order and fair process, including a proper assessment of benefits, with reference to 91-A and relevant precedents.
Final Disposition
Writ petitions allowed; impugned orders set aside; Government directed to reconsider exemption applications after hearing within three months, with status quo maintained pending reconsideration; further orders to be communicated to all parties. The court clarifies interpretation of 91-A and Section 87, requiring a speaking order and a fair, hearing-based evaluation of benefits versus ESI coverage.

Parties to the Case

Appellants / Petitioners

  • Arya Vaidya Sala, Kottakkal

Respondents

  • State of Kerala
  • Employees State Insurance Corporation
  • Kottakkal Arya Vaidya Sala Workers Federation (CITU)
  • Arya Vaidya Sala Employees Union
  • Arya Vaidya Sala Mazdoor Sangh (BMS)
  • Arya Vaidya Sala Workers Union (AITUC)
  • District Labour Officer, Malappuram

Legal Representation & Advocates

Counsels for Petitioners

  • • V. Krishna Menon
  • • U. K. Ramakrishnan (Sr.)
  • • Prinsun Philip
  • • U. K. Devidas
  • • Devi C. Haridas
  • • Dinesh Thankappan
  • • Adarsh Kumar
  • • C. Anil Kumar
  • • Asha K. Shenoy
  • • T. C. Krishna
  • • Preethi Ramakrishnan
  • • Pratap Abraham Varghese
  • • P. Ramakrishnan
  • • P. Sankaran Kutty Nair

Counsels for Respondents

  • • Jibu T. S. (Government Pleader)
  • • P. Ramakrishnan
  • • Adarsh Kumar
  • • Shashank Devan
  • • T. D. Rajalakshmy

Case Synopsis & Summary

These six writ petitions challenge the State’s exempting Arya Vaidya Sala from the Employees’ State Insurance (ESI) Act by invoking Section 87 of the ESI Act. The core issue is whether the appropriate Government must pass a speaking order when granting exemptions under Section 87, and whether such exemptions can be treated as prospective only under Section 91-A (as amended in 2010) or may relate to the date of the application. AVS argues that the exemptions have repeatedly been granted since 1978, yet the orders lack reasons, deny hearing to the ESI Corporation and workers, and misapply Section 91-A by denying any retrospective effect. The petitioners rely on Kancor Ingredients Ltd. (speaking order required), Kerala Educational Society, and Fertilizer & Chemicals Travancore to insist on fair process and proper evaluation of benefits (whether the employer’s benefits are substantially similar or superior) before exempting from ESI. The respondents contend exemptions are a form of conditional legislation; decisions may be taken after enquiry and hearing, and that the second proviso fixes a directory timeline. The court ultimately quashes the challenged orders for absence of speaking reasons and directs reconsideration after hearing, within three months, while maintaining status quo pending fresh orders.

Provisions of Law Cited

Chapter VIII of the Employees' State Insurance Act, 1948Section 87 of the ESI ActSection 88 of the ESI ActSection 89 of the ESI ActSection 90 of the ESI ActSection 91 of the ESI ActSection 91-A of the ESI Act

Legal Doctrines & Maxims

  • The Legislature cannot delegate its power to make a law, but it can make a law to delegate a power to determine some fact or state of things upon which the law makes its own action depend (Hamdard Dawakhana v. UOI; Field v. Clarke).
  • Conditional legislation vs delegated legislation (as explained in Hamdard Dawakhana and related authorities).
  • Exemption under Section 87 is conditional legislation and cannot be described as delegated legislation.
  • Exemptions under Section 91-A must be prospective after amendment (1.6.2010), and retrospective exemptions are barred from earlier dates than the application date; however, exemptions may take effect from the date of application in certain circumstances (Kerala Educational Society context).
  • Employees are the principal beneficiaries of the ESI Act and must be heard (Fertilizer & Chemicals Travancore Ltd. v. ESI Corp.).
  • A speaking, reasoned order is required for exemption decisions under Section 87 (Kancor Ingredients; Fertilizer case cited).
  • The necessity of hearing and considering representations from the ESI Corporation and recognised unions before granting exemption (Sections 89, 87).

Submissions & Arguments

Contentions of Appellants / Petitioners

The petitioners argued that the exemption orders under Section 87 were issued without a speaking order and without proper hearing. They urged that exemptions under 87 are conditioned by the requirement of enquiry, hearing and a reasoned order, as reinforced by authorities like Kancor Ingredients and Kerala Educational Society. They contended that Section 91-A (amended in 2010) requires prospective effect, and that exemptions based on the date of the application can avoid retrospective invalidity. They highlighted that workers’ benefits under AVS exceed those under the ESI Act, and that the unions representing workers lodged consent to exemption. They urged a full, meaningful enquiry via District Labour Officer and a hearing with all affected parties, with a timely, reasoned decision. They pressed for interpretation of 91-A that allows the exemption to take effect from the application date, subject to correction of any defects.

Contentions of Respondents

The respondents argued that Section 87 exemptions are a form of conditional legislation and may be decided following an enquiry with hearings; exemptions can be granted or renewed for one-year periods with conditions. They maintained that natural justice and ESI Corporation consultations are inherently embedded in Section 89 and the second proviso to Section 87; the Government is not bound to issue a speaking order in every case when exercising delegated/conditional authority; they asserted that 91-A’s prospective effect applies, that retrospective exemptions are barred and that timing of disposal can be directory rather than mandatory.

Cited Precedents (11)

Case NameCitationTreatmentExplanation
Kancor Ingredients Limited rep. by its Personnel Manager, Angamally south v. Regional Director (Ker) E.S.I Corporation and Others2012-III-LLJ-316 (Kerala)PositiveCited to support the requirement of a speaking order and detailed consideration in exemption proceedings under Section 87.
Kerala Educational Society v. State of Kerala2011 (4) KLT 318PositiveUsed to interpret Section 91-A and the prospective nature of exemptions; discussed in this judgment to guide the retrospective vs prospective effect.
Fertilizer & Chemicals Travancore Ltd. v. ESI Corporation(2009) 9 SCC 485PositiveCited for the principle that employees are entitled to be heard and represented in ESI exemption matters.
I.T.C Bhadrachalam Paperboards & Ors. v. Mandal Revenue Officer, A.P. & Others(1996) 6 SCC 634PositiveCited to illustrate the distinction between conditional and delegated legislation in the context of exemptions.
Hamdard Dawakhana v. Union of India(1960) 2 SCR 671PositiveCited regarding the conditional vs delegated legislation distinction that underpins the Section 87 power.
Field v. Clarke(1892) 143 U.S. 649PositivePro-emphasizes the principle that legislation may delegate time/manner of effect; discussed in the conditional vs delegated framework.
Tulsipur Sugar Co. Ltd. v. Notified Area Committee, Tulsipur(1982) 2 S.C.C. 295PositiveCited as a precedent for conditional legislation and delegated powers context.
Pantheerankavu Service Co-operative Bank Ltd. v. State of KeralaILR 2016 (2) Kerala 1073Mentioned OnlyMentioned to discuss natural justice/delegation principles in subordinate legislation context.
Indian Express Newspapers (Bombay) Private Ltd. v. Union of India(1985) 1 S.C.C. 641Mentioned OnlyCited in the broader discussion of natural justice constraints on delegated/subordinate legislation.
The Registrar of Cooperative Societies & Another v. Kunjambu & OthersNot specifiedMentioned OnlyReferred in the context of delegation and judicial review of delegated powers.
Everett (India) Private Ltd. v. State of West Bengal & Ors.(2002) LLJ Cal. 477Mentioned OnlyCited as a comparative authority on government powers in exemption-like contexts.

Diagnostic Tool

Beta

Does this judgment govern your specific facts?

Don't risk relying on a distinguishable precedent. Enter your facts or proposition below. We will test it against Arya Vaidya Sala, Kottakkal v. State of Kerala and Others (W.P.C. Nos. 37647 of 2010; 29454 of 2011; 18456 of 2012; 6644 of 2013; 24786 of 2014; 32536 of 2017) and instantly map out authorities that support, challenge, or govern your position.

Extracted Judgment Text

Exact text extracted from official judgment records.

## **`IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM`** # **`PRESENT`** ``` THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN TUESDAY, THE 1[ST] DAY OF NOVEMBER 2022 / 10TH KARTHIKA, 1944 ``` ## **`WP(C) NO. 37647 OF 2010`** ## **`PETITIONER/S:`** ``` ARYA VAIDYA SALA, KOTTAKKAL KOTTAKKAL P.O.,MALAPPURAM DISTRICT-676503, KERALA, REP.BY ITS MANAGING TRUSTEE ``` ``` BY ADVS. SRI.V.KRISHNA MENON, SRI.U.K.RAMAKRISHNAN (SR.) SRI.U.K.DEVIDAS, SRI.PRINSUN PHILIP ``` ## **`RESPONDENT/S:`** ``` 1THE STATE OF KERALA REP.BY THE SECRETARY TO GOVT, LABOUR AND REHABILITATION (B)DEPARTMENT,, GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM 2EMPLOYEES STATE INSURANCE CORPORATION PANCHDEEP BHVAN, NORTH SWARAJ ROUND,, TRICHUR- 680020,REP.BY ITS DIRECTOR 3KOTTAKKAL ARYA VAIDYA SALA WORKERS FEDERATION (CITU), P.O.KOTTAKKAL, MALAPPURAM DIST, REP.BY ITS GENERAL SECRETARY 4ARYA VAIDYA SALA EMPLOYEES UNION, KOTTAKKAL-676503,, REP.BY ITS GENERAL SECRETARY 5ARYA VAIDYA SALA MAZDOOR SANGH (BMS) KOVILAKAM ROAD, KOTTAKKAL-676503, REP.BY ITS GENERAL SECRETARY 6ARYA VAIDYA SALA WORKERS UNION(AITUC) P.O.KOTTAKKAL-676503, REP.BY ITS GENERAL SECRETARY BY ADVS. G.P.SRI.JIBU T.S., SRI.ADARSH KUMAR SRI.P.RAMAKRISHNAN, SMT.T.D.RAJALAKSHMY, SC, ESI CORPN. ``` ``` THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ``` ``` ON 01.11.2022, ALONG WITH WP(C)NOS.6644/2013, 18456/2012 AND CONNECTED CASES, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: ``` **W.P.(C) No. 32536 of 2017 and conn.cases** **2** ## **`IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM`** ## **`PRESENT`** ``` THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN TUESDAY, THE 1[ST] DAY OF NOVEMBER 2022 / 10TH KARTHIKA, 1944 ``` ## **`WP(C) NO. 29454 OF 2011`** ## **`PETITIONER:`** ``` ARYA VAIDYA SALA, KOTTAKKAL, KOTTAKKAL PO, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT - 676 503, KERALA, REP. BY ITS MANAGING TRUSTEE. BY ADVS. V.KRISHNA MENON SRI.U.K.RAMAKRISHNAN (SR.) SRI.PRINSUN PHILIP ``` ## **`RESPONDENTS:`** ``` 1STATE OF KERALA SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, LABOUR AND REHABILITATION, (B) DEPARTMENT, GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695001 2EMPLOYEES STATE INSURANCE CORPORATION PANCHADEEP BHAVAN, NORTH SWARAJ ROUND, TRICHUR - 680 020, REP. BY ITS DIRECTOR 3KOTTAKKAL ARYA VAIDYASALA WORKERS FEDERATION (CITU), P.O. KOTTAKKAL, MALAPPURAM - 676 503, REP. BY ITS GENERAL, SECRETARY. 4ARYA VAIDYA SALA EMPLOYEES UNION, KOTTAKKAL - 676 503, REP.BY ITS GENERAL SECRETARY. 5ARYA VAIDYA SALA MAZDOOR SANGH (BMS) KOVILAKAM ROAD, KOTTAKKAL - 676 503, REP. BY ITS GENERAL SECRETARY. 6ARYA VAIDYA SALA WORKERS UNION (AITUC), P.O. KOTTAKAL - 676 503, REP. BY ITS GENERAL SECRETARY. BY ADVS. GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI.JIBU T.S. SRI.ADARSH KUMAR, SRI.P.RAMAKRISHNAN SMT.T.D.RAJALAKSHMY, SC, ESI CORPN. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 01.11.2022, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: ``` **W.P.(C) No. 32536 of 2017 and conn.cases** **3** ## **`IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM`** ## **`PRESENT`** ``` THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN TUESDAY, THE 1[ST] DAY OF NOVEMBER 2022 / 10TH KARTHIKA, 1944 ``` ## **`WP(C) NO. 18456 OF 2012`** ## **`PETITIONER:`** ``` ARYA VAIDYA SALA, KOTTAKKAL KOTTAKKAL.P.O, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT - 676 503, KERALA, REP. BY ITS MANAGING TRUSTEE. BY ADVS. V.KRISHNA MENON, SRI.U.K.RAMAKRISHNAN (SR.) SRI. PRINSUN PHILIP, SRI.U.K.DEVIDAS,J.SURYA ``` ## **`RESPONDENTS:`** ``` 1STATE OF KERALA REP. BY THE SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, LABOUR AND REHABILITATION (B) DEPARTMENT, GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 695 001. 2EMPLOYEES STATE INSURANCE CORPORATION PANCHDEEP BHAVAN, NORTH SWARAJ ROUND, TRICHUR - 680 020, REP. BY ITS DIRECTOR. 3KOTTAKKAL ARYA VAIDYA SALA WORKERS FEDERATION (CITU) P.O. KOTTAKKAL, MALAPPURAM - 676 503, REPRESENTED BY ITS GENERAL SECRETARY. 4ARYA VAIDYA SALA EMPLOYEES UNION KOTTAKKAL - 676 503, REPRESENTED BY ITS GENERAL SECRETARY. 5ARYA VAIDYA SALA MAZDOOR SANGH (BMS) KOVILAKAM ROAD, KOTTAKKAL - 676 503, REPRESENTED BY ITS GENERAL SECRETARY. 6ARYA VAIDYA SALA WORKERS UNION (AITUC) P.O. KOTTAKKAL - 676 503, REPRESENTED BY ITS GENERAL SECRETARY. BY ADVS. SRI.P.RAMAKRISHNAN,SRI.ADARSH KUMAR,SRI.SHASHANK DEVAN, SMT.T.D.RAJALAKSHMY,SC,ESI CORPN., G.P.SRI.JIBU T.S ``` **W.P.(C) No. 32536 of 2017 and conn.cases** **4** ``` THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 01.11.2022,A/W. WP© NO.37647 OF 2010 & CONN.CASES, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: ``` **W.P.(C) No. 32536 of 2017 and conn.cases** **5** ## **`IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM`** ## **`PRESENT`** ``` THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN TUESDAY, THE 1[ST] DAY OF NOVEMBER 2022 / 10TH KARTHIKA, 1944 ``` ## **`WP(C) NO. 6644 OF 2013`** ## **`PETITIONER/S:`** ``` ARYA VAIDYASALA, KOTTAKKAL KOTTAKKAL P.O, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT-676 503, KERALA, REP. BY ITS MANAGING TRUSTEE. BY ADVS. V.KRISHNA MENON, SRI.U.K.DEVIDAS, SRI.PRINSUN PHILIP ``` ## **`RESPONDENT/S:`** ``` 1STATE OF KERALA REP. BY THE SECRETARY TO GOVT., LABOUR AND REHABILITAION (B) DEPARTMENT, GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-1. 2EMPLOYEES STATE INSURANCE CORPORATION PANCHDEEP BHAVAN, NORTH SWARAJ ROUND, TRICHUR-680 020, REP. BY ITS DIRECTOR 3KOTTAKKAL ARYA VAIDYA SALA WORKERS FEDERATION (CITU) P.O.KOTTAKKAL, MALAPPURAM - 676 503. REP. BY ITS GENERAL SECRETARY. 4ARYA VAIDYA SALA EMPLOYEES UNION, KOTTAKKAL - 676 503, REP. BY ITS GENERAL SECRETARY. 5ARYA VAIDYA SALA MAZDOOR SANGH (BMS) KOVILAKAM ROAD, KOTTAKKAL - 676 503, REP. BY ITS GENREAL SECRETARY. 6ARYA VAIDYA SALA WORKERS UNION (AITUC) P.O.KOTTAKKAL - 676 503. REP, BY ITS GENERAL SECRETARY . 7DISTRICT LABOUR OFFICER MALAPPURAM BY ADVS. SRI.P.RAMAKRISHNAN, SRI.ADARSH KUMAR SMT.T.D.RAJALAKSHMY, SC, ESI CORPN.,SRI.SHASHANK DEVAN G.P.SRI.JIBU T.S. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 01.11.2022, ALONG WITH WP(C)NO.37647/2010 AND CONNECTED CASES, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: ``` **W.P.(C) No. 32536 of 2017 and conn.cases** **6** ## **`IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM`** ## **`PRESENT`** ``` THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN TUESDAY, THE 1[ST] DAY OF NOVEMBER 2022 / 10TH KARTHIKA, 1944 ``` ## **`WP(C) NO. 24786 OF 2014`** ## **`PETITIONER/S:`** ``` ARYA VAIDYA SALA, KOTTAKKAL, KOTTAKKAL P.O,MALAPPURAM DISTRICT 676 503, KERALA, REP BY ITS MANAGING TRUSTEE BY ADVS. V.KRISHNA MENON, SRI.U.K.RAMAKRISHNAN (SR.) SRI.U.K.DEVIDAS, SMT.DEVI.C.HARIDAS, SRI.DINESH THANKAPPAN SRI.PRINSUN PHILIP RESPONDENTS: 1THE STATE OF KERALA REP BY THE SECRETARY TO GOVT. LABOUR AND REHABILITATION (B) DEPARTMENT, GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM 1 2EMPLOYEES STATE INSURANCE CORPORATION, PANCHDEEP BHAVAN,NORTH SWARAJ ROUND,TRICHUR 680 020, REP BY ITS DIRECTOR 3KOTTAKKAL ARYA VAIDYA SALA WORKERS FEDERATION (CITU) P.O KOTTAKKAL,MALAPPURAM-676 503 REP BY ITS GENERAL SECRETARY 4ARYA VAIDYA SALA EMPLOYEES UNION, KOTTAKKAL- 676 503, REP BY ITS GENERAL SECRETARY 5ARYA VAIDYA SALA MAZDOOR SANGH(BMS),KOVILAKAM ROAD, KOTTAKKAL 676 503, REP BY ITS GENERAL SECRETARY 6ARYA VAIDYA SALA WORKERS UNION(AITUC) P.O KOTTAKKAL 676 503 REP BY ITS GENERAL SECRETARY 7DISTRICT LABOUR OFFICER, MALAPPURAM-676 505 BY ADVS. SRI.P.RAMAKRISHNAN, SRI.ADARSH KUMAR, SRI.SHASHANK DEVAN SMT.T.D.RAJALAKSHMY,SC,ESI CORPN.,G.P.SRI.JIBU T.S. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 01.11.2022, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: ``` **W.P.(C) No. 32536 of 2017 and conn.cases** **7** ## **`IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM`** ## **`PRESENT`** ``` THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN TUESDAY, THE 1[ST] DAY OF NOVEMBER 2022 / 10TH KARTHIKA, 1944 ``` ## **`WP(C) NO. 32536 OF 2017`** ## **`PETITIONER/S:`** ``` ARYA VAIDYA SALA KOTTAKKAL, KOTTAKKAL .P.O,MALAPPURAM DISTRICT- 676503,KERALA, REP. BY ITS MANAGING TRUSTEE. BY ADVS. SRI.U.K.RAMAKRISHNAN (SR.),SRI.U.K.DEVIDAS SRI.PRINSUN PHILIP,SMT.J.SURYA ``` ## **`RESPONDENT/S:`** ``` 1STATE OF KERALA REP. BY THE SECRETARY TO GOVT.,LABOUR AND REHABILITATION (B) DEPARTMENT, GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-1. 2EMPLOYEES STATE INSURANCE CORPORATION PANCHDEEP BHAVAN, NORTH SWARAJ ROUND, TRICHUR- 680020, REP. BY ITS DIRECTOR. 3KOTTAKKAL ARYA VAIDYA SALA WORKERS FEDERATION (CITU) P.O. KOTTAKKAL, MALAPPURAM-676503.REP. BY ITS GENERAL SECRETARY. 4ARYA VAIDYA SALA EMPLOYEES UNION KOTTAKKAL-676503,REP. BY ITS GENERAL SECRETARY. 5ARYA VAIDYA SALA MAZDOOR SANGH (BMS) KOVILAKAM ROAD, KOTTAKKAL-676503,REP. BY ITS GENERAL SECRETARY. 6ARYA VAIDYA SALA WORKERS UNION (AITUC) P.O. KOTTAKKAL-676503,REP. BY ITS GENERAL SECRETARY. BY ADVS. SRI.ADARSH KUMAR,SRI.C.ANIL KUMAR, SMT.ASHA K.SHENOY SRI.T.C.KRISHNA, SMT.PREETHI RAMAKRISHNAN P-212 SRI.PRATAP ABRAHAM VARGHESE,SRI.P.RAMAKRISHNAN SRI.P.SANKARANKUTTY NAIR,SC,ESI CORPN,G.P.SRI.JIBU T.S. ``` ``` THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 01.11.2022, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: ``` **W.P.(C) No. 32536 of 2017 and conn.cases** **8** ## **“CR”** ## **P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN, J** **---------------------------------------** **W.P.(C) Nos.37647 of 2010, 29454 of 2011, 18456 of 2012, 6644 of 2013, 24786 of 2014 & 32536 of 2017 -------------------------------------Dated this the 1[st] day of November, 2022** ## **JUDGMENT** The short point to be decided in these writ petitions is the validity of an order passed by the 1[st] respondent - State of Kerala by invoking the powers under Sec. 87 of the Employees' State Insurance Act, 1948 (for short “ESI Act”). Whether the appropriate Government while passing orders under Sec.87 of the ESI Act should pass a speaking order and whether the exemption orders can be passed based on the date of the application for exemption in the light of Sec. 91-A of the ESI Act are some of the ancillary points to be decided. Since in all these cases, common questions are raised, the narration of the facts in one of the case will be sufficient for resolving the issue. Therefore, W.P.(C) No. 32536/2017 can be **W.P.(C) No. 32536 of 2017 and conn.cases** **9** treated as the leading case and the exhibits marked in this case is referred in this judgment unless it is specifically mentioned otherwise. 2. The petitioner in all these writ petitions is Arya Vaidya Sala Kottakkal, which is a charitable trust constituted as per the will executed by late Vaidyaratnam P.S.Warrier in the year 1939. The petitioner is engaged in the manufacture and sale of Ayurvedic medicines. Besides this the petitioner is imparting ayurvedic treatment by establishing hospitals and is also conducting research in Ayurveda. The head office of the petitioner is situated at Kottakkal and the petitioner also has branches at different parts of the country. The petitioner is employing about 2500 employees including temporary, casuals and Doctors attached to its hospitals and branches. The service conditions of the workmen of the petitioner are governed by the certified standing orders and long-term settlements entered into between the management and the trade unions regularly. As per the referendum of trade unions conducted in terms of the settlement the petitioner has recognized respondents 3 to 6 namely Kottakkal Arya Vaidya Sala Workers Federation (CITU), Arya Vaidya Sala Employees **W.P.(C) No. 32536 of 2017 and conn.cases** **10** Union, Arya Vaidya Sala Mazdoor Sangh (BMS) and Arya Vaidya Sala Workers Union (AITUC) as bargaining agents of the employees of the petitioner. 3. The petitioner is exempted from the provisions of the ESI Act by the 1[st] respondent by invoking the powers under Sec.87 of the ESI Act on year-to-year basis from 1978 onwards during which period the area wherein the petitioner's establishment is located has been brought under the umbrella of the ESI Act. The trade unions of the employees of the petitioner have also represented to the petitioner, the 1[st] respondent and the 2[nd] respondent - The Employee State Insurance Corporation, that the employees are satisfied with the benefits provided by the petitioner which according to them is superior to the benefits provided under the ESI Act. They also submitted that they do not want to be covered under the provisions of the ESI Act. The 1[st] respondent on being satisfied that the employees of the petitioner are in receipt of benefits superior than the benefits provided under the ESI Act, was exempting the petitioner from the provisions of the ESI Act on year-to-year basis, i.e., from 1978 to 2009. Exts.P1 to P29 are the different Government Orders granting exemption to the petitioner from **W.P.(C) No. 32536 of 2017 and conn.cases** **11** the provisions of the ESI Act. 4. Subsequently, as per the Employees’ State Insurance (Amendment) Act, 2010 (for short “Amendment Act”), certain provisions of ESI Act including Secs. 87 and 91-A were amended. The amendment to Secs. 87 and 91-A of the ESI Act came into force with effect from 01.06.2010. 5. In the meanwhile, for the period starting from 01.10.2009 to 30.09.2010, the petitioner submitted an application dated 15.09.2009 to the 1[st] respondent for exemption under Sec. 87 of the ESI Act. Subsequently the 1[st] respondent referred the matter for enquiry to the District Labour Officer, Malappuram and the District Labour Officer conducted the enquiry by issuing notice dated 03.03.2010 to the petitioner. Respondents 3 to 6 send their submission to the District Labour Officer, Malappuram admitting that the employees of the petitioner are getting benefits superior to the benefits provided under the ESI Act and they have given their consent for exemption of the petitioner from the provisions of the ESI Act under Section 87 of the ESI Act. The District Labour Officer, Malappuram after conducting enquiry submitted his report to respondents 1 and 2 stating that the **W.P.(C) No. 32536 of 2017 and conn.cases** **12** petitioner may be exempted from the ESI Scheme for the period 01.10.2009 to 30.09.2010. But, the 1[st] respondent as per Ext.P30 order rejected the application which resulted in the filing of W.P.(C) No.18456/2012 before this Court. This Court admitted the above writ petition and granted interim order on 07.08.2012 staying the enforcement of the provisions of the ESI Act and Scheme. Ext.P31 is the stay order passed in W.P.(C)No.18456/2012. 6. For the period, 01.10.2010 to 30.09.2011, the petitioner had submitted the application dated 26.06.2010 on 28.06.2010 to the 1[st] respondent for exemption under Section 87 of the ESI Act. Similar enquiry was conducted by the District Labour Officer, Malappuram for this period also. But that exemption application was also rejected as per Ext.P32 by the Government. Against Ext.P32 order, the petitioner filed W.P.(C)No.37647/2010 and this Court passed Exts.P33 and P34stay orders. Similarly for the period from 01.10.2011 to 30.09.2012, 01.10.2012 to 30.09.2013 and 01.10.2013 to 30.09.2014, applications under Section 87 of the ESI Act were submitted and those applications were rejected and consequently writ petitions were filed as W.P. **W.P.(C) No. 32536 of 2017 and conn.cases** **13** (C)Nos.29454/2011, 6644/2013 and 24786/2014 before this Court and this Court passed interim orders in all those writ petitions. 7. Subsequently, for the period from 01.10.2015 to 30.09.2016, the petitioner submitted application dated 16.06.2015 to the 1[st] respondent for exemption under Section 87 of the ESI Act. Exts.P42 and P42(a) are the applications. Exts.P43 to P46 are the statements submitted by respondents 3 to 6 admitting that the employees of the petitioner are getting benefits superior to the benefits provided under the ESI Act. Thereafter, Ext.P47 order was passed rejecting the application. Aggrieved by Ext.P47, W.P.(C)No.32536/2017 was filed. 8. Heard Advocate V. Krishna Menon for the petitioner and the learned Government Pleader for the first respondent. I also heard the Standing counsel appearing for the ESI Corporation. Advocate P. Ramakrishnan appeared for the trade unions. 9. The counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that the impugned orders in these writ petitions are unsustainable for the simple reason that it is not a speaking **W.P.(C) No. 32536 of 2017 and conn.cases** **14** order and it is an order passed without giving an opportunity of being heard to the petitioner. It is also submitted that the finding in these impugned orders in these writ petitions that there cannot be any exemption order retrospectively in the light of Section 91-A of the ESI Act will not stand. The counsel submitted that the applications for exemption are to be allowed based on the date of those applications and if the orders are passed belatedly, it cannot be treated as an order passed retrospectively in violation of Section 91-A of the ESI Act. The counsel also relied on the judgment of this Court in **Kancor Ingredients Limited rep. by its Personnel Manager, Angamally south v. Regional Director (Ker) E.S.I Corporation and Others** [2012-III-LLJ-316 (Kerala)] to contend that a speaking order is necessary while considering an application for exemption under Section 87 of the ESI Act. The counsel for the petitioner also relied on the judgement of this court in **Kerala Educational Society v. State of Kerala [2011 (4) KLT 318]** to contend that there is no violation of Section 91-A of ESI Act. 10. The counsel appearing for the ESI Corporation **W.P.(C) No. 32536 of 2017 and conn.cases** **15** strongly opposed the prayers in these writ petitions. The counsel submitted that the Government is considering these applications by invoking the powers of conditional legislation. When the Government is invoking the powers of conditional legislation, the question of natural justice or the question of speaking order will not arise. The counsel also submitted that there is no proper pleadings in these writ petitions to show that the benefits given to the employees of the petitioner are similar or superior to the benefits as per the ESI Act. The counsel also submitted that the order granting exemption under Section 87 can be passed only prospectively and there is no need to interfere with the impugned orders passed by the Government. The Government pleader supported the impugned orders. The counsel appearing for respondent Nos.3 to 6 supported the arguments of the petitioner. 11. This Court considered the contentions of the petitioner and the respondents. The power of exemption given to the appropriate Government is mentioned in Chapter VIII of the ESI Act. Section 87 states the exemption of a factory or establishment or class of factories or establishments. It will be better to extract Section 87 of the ESI Act with its two **W.P.(C) No. 32536 of 2017 and conn.cases** **16** ## provisos: 87. **Exemption of a factory or establishment or class of factories or establishments.** - The appropriate Government may, by notification in the Official Gazette and subject to such conditions as may be specified in the notification, exempt any factory or establishment or class of factories or establishments in any specified area from the operation of this Act for a period not exceeding one year and may from time to time by like notification renew any such exemption for periods not exceeding one year at a time: Provided that such exemptions may be granted only if the employees in such factories or establishments are otherwise in receipt of benefits substantially similar or superior to the benefits provided under this Act: Provided further that an application for renewal shall be made three months before the date of expiry of the exemption period and a decision on the same shall be taken by the appropriate Government within two months of receipt of such application. 12. As per Section 87, the appropriate Government may, by notification in the official Gazette and subject to such conditions as may be specified in the notification, exempt any factory or establishment or class of factories or establishments in any specified area from the operation of the ESI Act for a period not exceeding one year. The two conditions mentioned in Section 87 is that a notification in the official Gazette is **W.P.(C) No. 32536 of 2017 and conn.cases** **17** necessary and the appropriate Government can impose such conditions as may be specified in the notification. Therefore, each application has to be dealt with separately and the maximum period that can be exempted is one year at a time. The first proviso to Section 87 states that the exemptions may be granted only if the employees in such factories or establishments are otherwise in receipt of benefits substantially similar or superior to the benefits provided under the ESI Act. The second proviso to Section 87 states that, an application for renewal shall be made within three months before the date of expiry of the exemption period and a decision on the same shall be taken by the appropriate Government within two months of receipt of such application. Section 88 of the ESI Act deals with the exemption of persons or class of persons. Section 89 states that, no exemption shall be granted or renewed under Section 87 or Section 88, unless a reasonable opportunity has been given to the Corporation to make any representation it may wish to make in regard to the proposal and such representation has been considered by the appropriate Government. Section 90 states about the exemption of factories or establishments belonging to **W.P.(C) No. 32536 of 2017 and conn.cases** **18** Government or any local authority. Section 91 states about the exemption from one or more provisions of the Act. Section 91-A of the ESI Act states about the exemptions to be prospective. Section 91-A of the ESI Act is extracted hereunder: “91-A. **Exemptions to be prospective.** - Any notification granting exemption under section 87, section 88, section 90 or section 91 may be issued so as to take effect prospectively on such date as may be specified therein.” 13. A reading of the impugned orders in these writ petitions will show that, one of the reasons mentioned by the 1[st] respondent State to reject the applications for exemption under Section 87 is that, in the light of the amended Act, there cannot be retrospective exemption. Ext.P37 in W.P. (C)No.37647/2010 reads like this: “I am to invite your attention to the reference cited and to inform you that your application for exemption from ESI coverage for the period from 1.10.2010 to 30.9.2011 cannot be considered in view of the ESI (Amendment) Act 2010 dated 25.5.2010 whereby retrospective exemption cannot be granted and also since the benefits provided by your establishment are not similar or superior to those provided under the ESI Scheme.” **W.P.(C) No. 32536 of 2017 and conn.cases** **19** 14. Admittedly, in all these cases, there is no dispute that the applications were submitted by the petitioner in time and also in accordance with the second proviso to Section 87 of the ESI Act. If the applications are submitted within the statutory period, simply because the Government considered the matter after a long time it cannot be said that, the same is a retrospective exemption order in violation of section 91-A of the ESI Act. If such an interpretation is given to section 91-A of the ESI Act, it will be an injustice for the applicants under section 87 of the ESI Act. 15. The above point is considered by this Court in **Kerala Educational Society’s** case (supra). It will be better to extract the relevant portion of the judgment: - “3. The operative portion of the impugned order reads as follows:- "4. In the Ext.P3 application submitted by the petitioner for exemption from the purview of ESI Act under Ss. 87 and 88, the period for which exemption is required, has not been specifically indicated. The petitioner has sought exemption "with retrospective effect" without specifying the period of exemption. 5. As per section 91A of the ESI Act, 1948, as amended by the Act 18 of 2010, which came into force w.e.f. 1.6.2010, exemption can be granted only with prospective effect. Since there is no **W.P.(C) No. 32536 of 2017 and conn.cases** **20** provision in this Act to exempt with retrospective effect the request of the petitioner cannot be considered and the Ext.P3 application for exemption is therefore rejected. The directions of the Hon'ble High Court in the judgment read above is thus complied with." From a reading of the impugned order it is evident that the Government was mainly influenced by the entry made against column No.9 of the application which reads as follows:- "9.(a) Section of the : Section 87 & 88 of the E.S.I Act under which E.S.I Act, 1948. exemption is sought (b) The period for : With retrospective which the exemption effect." is required Against column 9(b) the petitioner had stated that the period for which exemption was required is "with retrospective effect". The impugned order also proceeds to state that in view of section 91A of the Act as amended by Act 18 of 2010 with effect from 1.6.2010, exemption can be granted only prospectively. The application submitted by the petitioner for exemption has been rejected on two grounds, namely, the period for which exemption was sought has not been specified and retrospective exemption cannot be granted. 3. Section 91A of the Act as it stood prior to 1.6.2010 reads as follows:- " **91A. Exemptions to be either prospective or retrospective.** -- Any notification granting exemption under **W.P.(C) No. 32536 of 2017 and conn.cases** **21** section 87, section 88, section 90 or section 91 may be issued so as to take effect either prospectively or retrospectively on such date as may be specified therein." Section 91A of the Act as amended with effect from 1.6.2010 reads as follows:- ## " **91A. Exemption to be prospectively.--** Any notification, granting exemption u/s.87, Section 88, Section 90 or Section 91 may be issued so as to take effect prospectively on such date as may be specified therein." As per the provisions in force prior to 1.6.2010 the State Government could have granted exemption either prospectively or retrospectively with effect from such date as may be specified in the order of exemption. On and with effect from 1.6.2010 the exemption granted can only have prospective effect from such date as may be specified therein. In my opinion the word 'prospectively' occurring in section 91A of the Act as amended with effect from 1.6.2010 cannot be interpreted to mean that an order of exemption can take effect only from the date on which it is granted. In a given case, the Government may have to spend some time on the application before granting an exemption. In another case, the Government may be in a position to pass expeditious orders. In other words, if the Government were to grant exemption with effect from the date of the application it cannot be said that such an order of exemption is illegal. The words "may be issued so as to take effect prospectively on such date as may be specified therein" cannot be interpreted to mean that that date can only be a future date. If that were the intention the Parliament would have stated that the notification granting exemption will take effect only from the date of the order. All that section 91A as amended prohibits is the grant of **W.P.(C) No. 32536 of 2017 and conn.cases** **22** retrospective exemption from an earlier date, anterior in point of time, to the application for exemption itself. In other words in view of the stipulations in S. 91A as amended, an order of exemption cannot take effect from a date earlier than the date of the applications. In the instant case the Government appears to have taken the stand that exemption can be granted only from the date of the order. That apart, the Government have also declined to grant exemption on the ground that the date with effect from which the petitioner seeks exemption has not been specified. In my opinion, if the Government were of the opinion that the application was defective for want of details, it should have returned the application to the petitioner and directed the petitioner to rectify the defect and to resubmit the application. It is evident from a reading of the impugned order that it was because of the omission in the application that the Government rejected the application. Such being the situation, I am of the opinion that the Government should reconsider Ext.P3 application after giving the petitioner an opportunity to rectify the defect in it, namely the entry in column 9(b). I accordingly allow the Writ Petition, quash Ext.P14 and direct the Government to reconsider Ext.P3 application after giving the petitioner an opportunity to correct the entry against column 9(b) of the application. The petitioner shall move the Government for such correction within two weeks from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this judgment. On the petitioner moving an application for correction, the Government shall consider Ext.P3 application afresh and pass appropriate orders thereon after notice to and affording the petitioner an opportunity of being heard. Needless to say the Government shall ascertain the views of the Corporation and shall, if necessary, afford an opportunity of being heard to the **W.P.(C) No. 32536 of 2017 and conn.cases** **23** Corporation also. The Government shall pass revised orders on Ext.P3 application within three months from the date of receipt of the application for correction and shall after orders are passed communicate copies thereof to all the parties simultaneously. Until such time, the status quo as on today shall be maintained as regards the proceedings, if any, initiated by the Corporation against the petitioner/petitioner's establishment.” 16. From the above decision it is clear that the word ‘prospectively’ in Section 91-A of the ESI Act, as amended with effect from 01.06.2010 cannot be interpreted to mean that an order of exemption can take effect only from the date on which it is granted. As stated in the **Kerala Educational Society’s case (supra)** , the Government may have to spend some time on the application before granting an exemption. In almost all these cases, an enquiry was conducted through the District Labour Officer by the Government before passing the orders. The counsel for the ESI Corporation submitted that the Government is bound to pass orders on the exemption application within two months of receipt of such application in the light of the second proviso to Section 87. Suppose the Government took more than 2 months to finish the enquiry, it cannot be said that such an order is illegal. A reading of the second proviso to Section 87 only states that the time fixed to **W.P.(C) No. 32536 of 2017 and conn.cases** **24** dispose the exemption application is only directory. In a given case for adequate reasons, the Government can consider the application even beyond the period. The counsel for the 2[nd] respondent submitted that in **Kerala Educational Society’s case,(supra),** the proviso to Section 87 is not considered. As I mentioned earlier, the time limit fixed in the statute for disposing the application can only be directory in the light of the fact that several factors have to be considered by the Government. The Government has to consider whether the benefits granted by the employer is similar or superior to the benefits under the ESI Act. The Government has to hear the ESI Corporation and also the Government has to conduct an enquiry before passing orders of exemption. Therefore, strict compliance of the outer limit fixed in the second proviso to Section 87 is not necessary while considering an application for exemption. The only condition is that the applications for renewal shall be made three months before the date of expiry of the exemption period. Admittedly, in all these cases, the applications for exemption were submitted three months before the date of expiry of exemption. Therefore, the reason shown in the impugned orders that the exemption cannot be **W.P.(C) No. 32536 of 2017 and conn.cases** **25** granted retrospectively is not applicable to the facts and circumstances of these cases, because the exemption is to be granted based on the date of application. The counsel for the ESI Corporation relied on the judgment of Bombay High Court in WP(C) 768 of 2014 and the judgment of the Madras High Court in WP(C) No.17948 of 2012 to support his contention. In the light of the decision of this Court in **Kerala Educational Society’s case (supra),** the decision of the Bombay High Court and the decision of the Madras High Court need not be looked into and I respectfully disagree with the interpretations in those judgments as far as section 91-A of the ESI Act is concerned. 17. The next point to be decided is when the Government rejects an application for exemption whether a speaking order is necessary or not. This Court in **Kancor Ingredients Limited’s** case (supra) considered this point in detail. It will be better to extract the relevant portions of the above judgment here: “6. A reading of Exhibit P-20 order denying exemption in the instant case would reveal that no reasons have been assigned to **W.P.(C) No. 32536 of 2017 and conn.cases** **26** justify the conclusion arrived at. It would not be sufficient to merely state mechanically that the benefits under the E.S.I. Scheme are far more superior and beneficial. The various benefits extended by the petitioner and the Employees' State Insurance Corporation have to be analysed item wise. A detailed order is warranted while granting or disallowing exemption under Section 87 of the Act. This is especially so since the interest of a large section of workers are involved whose representative also deserves to be heard in the exercise. The principal beneficiary of the Act is the employees who have a right to be heard as held in Fertilizer & Chemicals Travancore Ltd. v. ESI Corporation (2009) 9 SCC 485 : LNIND 2009 SC 1705. It needs no mention that exemption under Section 87 of the Act could be granted either prospectively or retrospectively under Section 91-A of the Act.” 18. From the above decision it is clear that mere statement by the Government that the benefits under the ESI scheme are far more superior and beneficiary is not sufficient. The various benefits extended by the petitioner and the Employees of the State Insurance Corporation have to be analysed item wise. A detailed order is warranted while granting or disallowing exemption under Section 87 of the ESI Act. Moreover, there are recognized trade unions in the petitioners’ establishment. A perusal of their statement filed in these writ petitions would show that they are satisfied with the benefits granted to their members by the petitioner’s **W.P.(C) No. 32536 of 2017 and conn.cases** **27** establishment. They filed affidavit before this Court to that effect. These aspects were not at all considered by the 1[st] respondent while passing the orders. Therefore, on the ground that the impugned orders are not speaking orders and also for the reason that the finding in the impugned orders states that there cannot be any retrospective exemption which is not correct, the impugned orders in these cases are to be quashed. The application for exemption is to be considered based on the date of those applications. If the applications are considered based on the date of those applications, it cannot be said that the same is a retrospective exemption in violation of Section 91-A of the ESI Act. 19. The counsel appearing for the ESI Corporation submitted that the powers given to the Government as per Section 87 is a conditional legislation and the question of speaking order or giving opportunity of hearing is not applicable when the powers are invoked based on the conditional legislation. The counsel relied on the judgment of the Apex Court in **I.T.C Bhadrachalam Paperboards and Ors. v. Mandal Revenue Officer, A.P. and Ors. [(1996) 6** **W.P.(C) No. 32536 of 2017 and conn.cases** **28** ## **SCC 634]** . It will be better to extract the relevant portions of the above judgment here: “22. In **Hamdard Dawakhana v. Union of India** 1960 (2) SCR.671, this court dealt with the distinction between conditional legislation and delegated legislation. The following observations are apposite: "The distinction between conditional legislation and delegated legislation is this that in the former the delegate's power is that of determining when a legislative declared rule of conduct shall become effective; Hampton & Co. v. United States,(1927) 276 U.S.394, and the latter involves delegation of rule making power which constitutionally may be exercised by the administrative agent. This means that the legislature having laid down the broad principles of its policy in the legislation can then leave the details to be supplied by the administrative authority. In other words by delegated legislation the delegate completes the legislation by supplying details within the limits prescribed by the statute and in the case of conditional legislation the power of legislation is exercised by the legislature conditionally leaving to the discretion of an external authority the time and the manner of carrying its legislation into effect as also the determination of the area to which it is to extend; {The Queen v. Burah, (1878) 3 A.C.889; Russell v. The Queen, (1882) 7 A.C.829; King-Emporer v. Benoarilal Sarma, (1944) L.R. 72 Ind Ap.57; Sardar Inder Singh v. State of Rajasthan,(1957) S.C.R.604.]. Thus when the delegate is given the power of making rules and regulations in order to fill in the details to carry out and subserve the **W.P.(C) No. 32536 of 2017 and conn.cases** **29** purposes of the legislation the manner in which the requirements of the statute are to be met and the rights therein created to be enjoyed it is an exercise or delegated legislation. But when the legislation is complete in itself and the legislature has itself made the law and the only function left to the delegate is to apply the law to an area or to determine the time and manner of carrying it into effect, it is conditional legislation. To put it in the language of another American case: To assert that a law is less than a law because it is made to depend upon a future event or act is to rob the legislature of the power to act wisely for the public welfare whenever a law is passed relating to a state of affairs not yet developed, or to things future and impossible to fully know. ## ' The proper distinction there pointed out was this: The legislature cannot delegate its power to make a law, but it can make a law to delegate a power to determine some fact or state of things upon which the law makes or intends to make its own action depend. There are many things upon which wise and useful legislation must depend which cannot be known to the law making power, and must therefore be subject of enquiry and determination outside the hall of legislature. (In Locks Appeal 72 Pa.491; Field v. Clark [1892] 143 U.S. 649." 23. Hamdard Dawakhana was, of course, a case where clause (d) of Section 3 of the Drugs and Magical Remedies (Objectionable Advertisement) Act, 1954 conferred upon the government the power to specify by Rules made under the Act **W.P.(C) No. 32536 of 2017 and conn.cases** **30** the diagnosis, cure etc. respecting which the advertisement of a drug was prohibited. The question before the Court was whether it is a case of delegated legislation or conditional legislation. The Court ultimately held that it belongs to the former category and is void being violative of Article 14 of the Constitution. 24. We may in this connection refer to the decision of the Supreme Court of United States in Field v. Clarke (1892) 143 U.S. 649 : 36 \ Ed.294. The Tariff Act of 1890 empowered the President to suspend the operation of the Act, permitting free import of certain products within United States, on being satisfied that the duties imposed upon such products were reciprocally unequal and unreasonable. It was submitted that the said power transfers the legislative and treaty-making power to the President and, hence unlawful. The attack was repelled holding that the President was a mere agent of the Congress to ascertain and declare the contingency upon which the will of the Congress was to take effect. The Court quoted with approval the following passage from an earlier case: "The Legislature cannot delegate its power to make a law; but it can make a law to delegate a power to determine some fact or state of things upon which the law makes, or intends to make, its own action depend. To deny this would be to stop the wheels of government. There are many things upon which wise and useful legislation must depend which cannot be known to the law making power and, must, therefore, be a subject of enquiry and determination outside the halls of the Legislation." 25. Reference may also be made to the decision of this Court in **W.P.(C) No. 32536 of 2017 and conn.cases** **31** Tulsipur Sugar Co. Ltd. v. Notified Area Committee, Tulsipur [1982] 2 S.C.C. 295 where the power conferred upon the government by Section 3 of the Uttar Pradesh Town Areas Act, 1914 to extend the limits of town area was also to be a power in the nature of conditional legislation. It was held that the power was legislative in character and, therefore, the incidents applicable to an administrative order do not apply to it. 26. What is, however, relevant is that the power to bring an Act into force as well as the power to grant exemption are both treated, without a doubt, as belonging to the category of conditional legislation. Very often the legislature makes a law but leaves it to the executive to prescribe a date with effect from which date the Act shall come into force. As a matter of fact, such a course has been adopted even in the case of a constitutional amendment, to wit, the Constitution (Forty-fourth Amendment) Act, 1978, insofar as it pertains to amendment of Article 22 of the Constitution. The power given to the executive to bring an Act into force as also the power conferred upon the government to exempt persons or properties from the operation of the enactment are both instances from the operation of the enactment are both instances of conditional legislation and cannot be described as delegated legislation." 20. According to the counsel, the power given to the executive to bring an act into force as also the power conferred upon the Government to exempt persons or properties from the operation of the enactment are both instances of conditional legislation and cannot be described as delegated legislation. The counsel submitted that when the **W.P.(C) No. 32536 of 2017 and conn.cases** **32** legislation is complete in itself and the legislature has itself made the law and the only function left to the delegate is to apply the law to an area or to determine the time and manner of carrying it into effect, is known as conditional legislation. It is very difficult to accept the contention of the Corporation that the Government invoking the powers of exemption under Section 87 of the ESI Act is based on the conditional legislation. A reading of section 87 would show that an enquiry is contemplated before granting exemption. The Government can impose certain conditions before granting exemption. The Government has to hear the affected parties including the ESI Corporation before granting exemption. The Government has to consider whether the benefit given by the establishment is substantially similar or superior to the benefits provided under the ESI Act, before deciding an application for exemption under Section 87 of the ESI Act. Each case has to be decided based on the materials available. Under such circumstances, in my opinion a full-fledged enquiry is necessary on the part of the Government before passing an order in an exemption application filed under Section 87 of the ESI Act. Therefore, in my opinion, under **W.P.(C) No. 32536 of 2017 and conn.cases** **33** such circumstances, a speaking order is necessary, especially when the recognised trade unions working in the establishments clearly stated that their members prefer the benefits of the establishment and the benefits given by the establishment is more beneficial than the benefits under the ESI Act. These aspects were not at all considered by the Government while deciding the matter. 21. The counsel for the Corporation also relied on a Division Bench Judgment of this Court in **Pantheerankavu Service Co-operative Bank Ltd. And others v. State of Kerala and others [I.L.R 2016 (2) Kerala 1073]** . The counsel relied on paragraph 26 of the judgment, which is extracted hereunder: “26. The power of granting exemption under Section 101 given to the State is a delegated legislation. The delegation of power to the State under Section 60 of Madras Co-operative Societies Act, 1932 has been upheld by the Apex Court in The Registrar of Cooperative Societies and another v. Kunjambu and others (supra) which provision was pari materia to Section 101. The notification issued by the State in exercise of delegated legislation under Section 101, which is a species of delegated legislation, and not an executive order. It is true that the delegated subordinate legislation can be questioned on any of the ground on which any plenary legislation can be questioned. But it is well-settled that **W.P.(C) No. 32536 of 2017 and conn.cases** **34** subordinate legislation cannot be questioned on the principles of natural justice. The Apex Court in **Indian Express Newspapers (Bombay) Private Ltd and others v. Union of India and others** [(1985) 1 SCC 641] has laid down the following in paragraph 78 : "78. That subordinate legislation cannot be questioned on the ground of violation of principles of natural justice on which administrative action may be questioned has been held by this Court in **The Tulsipur Sugar Co.Ltd.** **v. Notified Area Committee, Tulsipur, Rameshchandra Kachardas Porwal v. State of Maharashtra** and in **Bates V.Lord Hailsham of St.Marylebone.** A distinction must be made between delegation of a legislative function in the case of which the question of reasonableness cannot be enquired into and the investment by statute to exercise particular discretionary powers. In the latter case the question may be considered on all grounds on which administrative action may be questioned, such as, non- application of mind, taking irrelevant matters into consideration, failure to take relevant matters into consideration, etc., etc. On the facts and circumstances of a case, a subordinate legislation may be struck down as arbitrary or contrary to statute if it fails to take into account very vital facts which either expressly or by necessary implication are required to be taken into consideration by the statute or, say, the Constitution. This can only be done on the ground that it does not conform to the statutory or constitutional requirements or that it offends Article 14 or Article 19(1)(a) of the Constitution. It cannot, no doubt, be done merely on the ground that it is not **W.P.(C) No. 32536 of 2017 and conn.cases** **35** reasonable or that it has not taken into account relevant circumstances which the Court considers relevant." 22. That was a case in which this Court was considering the power of granting exemption under Section 101 of the Cooperative Societies Act, 1969 given to State. It is also stated that subordinate legislation cannot be questioned on the principles of natural justice. Here the case is whether before passing orders on an application under Section 87 of the ESI Act, an opportunity of hearing is to be given to the applicants and the ESI Corporation. A reading of Section 87 coupled with its proviso, makes it clear that an enquiry is to be done by the Government after hearing all the affected parties before passing orders in the exemption application. Under such circumstances, a speaking order is necessary while deciding an exemption application filed under Section 87 of the ESI Act. Moreover, the powers of the Government under Section 87 of the ESI Act cannot be treated as conditional legislation. The Madras High Court has considered this point in the Order dated 26.11.2009 in WP. No.12187 of 2009. The relevant portions is extracted hereunder:- 13. On the contrary, a combined reading of **W.P.(C) No. 32536 of 2017 and conn.cases** **36** the provisions from Sections 87, 88 and 90 will show that it is a delegated legislation. In terms of Sections 89 and 91, no exemption can be granted without consulting the E.S.I. Corporation. In the previous orders of exemption, there was nothing to show that the Corporation was consulted. When remarks were called for from the Corporation, the Corporation had given elaborate objection by its letter No.51/P/11/13/15/I.PN/Exmp/Inspn dated Nil objecting to the grant of exemption. Therefore, the petitioner cannot treat the grant of exemption as some private affair and secure orders from the Government without even notice to their workman and without hearing the corporation. Similarly, the Calcutta High Court also considered the powers of the Government under Section 87 of the E.S.I. Act in Everett (India) Private Ltd. V. State of West Bengal And Ors (2002) 11 LLJ 477 Cal. The relevant portions of the above judgment is extracted hereunder: 18. So far as the law is concerned, it should be borne in mind that an exemption under Section 87 is not in the nature of an ordinary hearing resulting in a statutory decision, but it is in the nature of a decision of issuance of a Notification. This issuance of a Notification, apart from combining elements of hearing also has in it an element of delegated legislation. The State Government in making the Notification uses the notifying power given to it by Section 87 of the ESI Act and this Notification has to be issued on an administrative pragmatism which is to be determined by the State Government as the body primarily in control of industrial matters, and the practical factors affecting such industrial matters. **W.P.(C) No. 32536 of 2017 and conn.cases** **37** I respectfully agree with the above principle laid down by the Madras and Calcutta High Courts. 23. The counsel for the E.S.I.Corporation submitted that there is no pleadings in the writ petitions to the effect that the benefits given by the petitioner is similar or superior to that of the benefits provided under the ESI Act. That itself is the crux of the case of the petitioner. The petitioner impleaded the recognised trade unions in these writ petitions. They filed an affidavit before this Court to the effect that they are getting superior benefits when compared to the benefits under the ESI Act. Under such circumstances, it cannot be said that there is no pleadings in these cases. 24. From the above discussions, it is clear that the impugned orders in these writ petitions are unsustainable and are to be set aside. The matter is to be reconsidered by the State Government, in the light of the observations in this judgment, after giving an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner and the respondents. 25. Therefore, these writ petitions are allowed in the following manner: **W.P.(C) No. 32536 of 2017 and conn.cases** **38** 1. The impugned orders, ie. - Ext.P37 in WP(C) No.37647 of 2010, Ext.P40 in WP(C) No.29454 of 2011, Ext.P44 in WP(C) No.18456 of 2012, Ext.P43 in WP(C) No.6644 of 2013, Ext.P45 in WP(C) No.24786 of 2014 and Ext.P47 in WP(C) No.32536 of 2017 are set aside. 2. The 1[st] respondent is directed to reconsider the applications for exemptions in all these cases, after giving an opportunity of hearing to the petitioners and the respondents, as expeditiously as possible, at any rate, within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. **Sd/-** **P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN JUDGE** SKS DM DAS **W.P.(C) No. 32536 of 2017 and conn.cases** **39** ## **`APPENDIX OF WP(C) 29454/2011`** ## `PETITIONER EXHIBITS` |`EXHIBIT P1:THE TRUE COPY OF `|`G.O`| |---|---| |`(RT)NO.1088/81/LBR DATED 24.08.81 `|`FOR`| |`1978-79.`|| |`EXHIBIT P2:THE TRUE COPY OF G.O(RT)`|| |`NO.1057/88/LBR-1 DATED 16.06.1988 `|`FOR`| |`1979-80.`|| |`EXHIBIT`<br>`P3:`<br>`THE`<br>`TRUE`<br>`COPY`|`OF`| |`G.O(RT)NO.1057/88/LBR-II DATED 16.6.1988`|| |`FOR 1980-81.`|| |`EXHIBIT P4: THE TRUE COPY OF `|`G.O.`| |`(RT)NO.1057/88/LBR-3 DATED 16.6.1988`|`FOR`| |`1981-1982.`|| |`EXHIBIT`<br>`P5:`<br>`THE`<br>`TRUE`<br>`COPY`|`OF`| |`G.O(RT)NO.1057/88/LBR-4 DATED 16.6.1988`|| |`FOR 1982-1983.`|| |`EXHIBIT`<br>`P6:`<br>`THE`<br>`TRUE`<br>`COPY`|`OF`| |`G.O(RT)NO.1057/88/LBR-5 DATED 16.6.1988`|| |`FOR 1983-1984.`|| |`EXHIBIT`<br>`P7:`<br>`THE`<br>`TRUE`<br>`COPY`|`OF`| |`G.O(RT)NO.195/91/LBR-1 DATED 24.1.1991`|`FOR`| |`1984-1985.`|| |`EXHIBIT`<br>`P8:`<br>`THE`<br>`TRUE`<br>`COPY`|`OF`| |`G.O(RT)NO.195/91/LBR-2 DATED 24.1.1991`|`FOR`| |`1985-86.`|| |`EXHIBIT`<br>`P9:`<br>`THE`<br>`TRUE`<br>`COPY`|`OF`| |`G.O(RT)NO.195/91/LBR-3 DATED 24.1.1991`|`FOR`| |`1986-1987.`|| |`EXHIBIT P10: THE TRUE COPY `|`OF`| |`G.O(RT)NO.195/91/LBR-4 DATED 24.1.1991`|`FOR`| |`1987-88.`|| |`EXHIBIT P11: THE TRUE COPY `|`OF`| |`G.O(RT)NO.195/91/LBR-5 DATED 24.1.1991`|`FOR`| |`1988-89.`|| |`EXHIBIT P12: THE TRUE COPY `|`OF`| |`G.O(RT)NO.195/91/LBR-6 DATED 24.1.1991`|`FOR`| |`1989-90.`|| |`EXHIBIT P13: THE TRUE COPY `|`OF`| |`G.O(RT)NO.2554/92/LBR-1 DATED 29.10.1992`|| |`FOR 1990-91.`|| |`EXHIBIT P14: THE TRUE COPY `|`OF`| **W.P.(C) No. 32536 of 2017 and conn.cases** **40** ``` G.O(RT)NO.2554/92/LBR-2 DATED 29.10.1992 FOR 1991-92. EXHIBIT P15: THE TRUE COPY OF G.O(RT)NO.2476/93/LBR-2 DATED 18.9.1993 FOR 1992-93. EXHIBIT P16: THE TRUE COPY OF G.O(RT)NO.113/94/LBR DATED 14.1.1994 FOR 1993-94. EXHIBIT P17: THE TRUE COPY OF G.O(RT)NO.1102/95/LBR DATED 20.5.1995 FOR 1994-95. EXHIBIT P18: THE TRUE COPY OF G.O(RT)NO.2014/97/LBR 5.7.1997 FOR 1995- 96. EXHIBIT P19: THE TRUE COPY OF G.O(RT)NO.3038/99/LBR DATED 17.9.1999 CONTAINING SRO NO.881/99 FOR 1996-97, SRO NO.882/99 FOR 1997-98 & SRO NO.883/99 FOR 1998-99. EXHIBIT P20: THE TRUE COPY OF G.O(RT)NO.182/2000/LBR DATED 17.1.2000 FOR 1999-2000. EXHIBIT P21: THE TRUE COPY OF G.O(RT)NO.1276/2001/LBR DATED 10.4.2001 FOR 2000-2001. EXHIBIT P22: THE TRUE COPY OF G.O(RT)NO.406/2002/LBR DATED 25.1.2002 FOR 2001-2002. EXHIBIT P23: THE TRUE COPY OF G.O(RT)NO.737/2003/LBR DATED 19.3.2003 FOR 2002-2003. EXHIBIT P24: THE TRUE COPY OF G.O(RT)NO.251/2004/LBR DATED 24.1.2004 FOR 2003-2004. EXHIBIT P25: THE TRUE COPY OF G.O(RT) NO.3344/2007/LBR DATED 13/11/2007 FOR 2004-2005 EXHIBIT P26: THE TRUE COPY OF G.O (RT) NO.1947/2008/LBR DATED 19/7/2008 FOR 2005- 2006 EXHIBIT P27: THE TRUE COPY OF G.O (RT) NO.1093/2007/LBR DATED 28/4/2008 FOR 2006- 2007 EXHIBIT P28: THE TRUE COPY OF G.O. (RT)NO.746/2010/LBR DATED 22/4/2010 FOR 2007-2008 ``` **W.P.(C) No. 32536 of 2017 and conn.cases** **41** ``` EXHIBIT P29: THE TRUE COPY OF G.O (RT) NO.745/2010/LBR DATED 22/4/2010 FOR 2008- 2009 ``` ``` EXT P30: COPY OF THE COVERING LETTER DTD 15.9.2009 OF THE PETITIONER. EXT P30(A):COPY OF THE APPLICATION FOR EXEMPTION U/S.87 OF THE ESI ACT FILED BY THE PETITIONER. ``` ``` EXTP31:COPYOFTHEORDER NO.14815/B3/2010/LBRDTD25.11.2010 PASSED BY R1 EXT P32: COPY OF THE STAY ORDER DTD 20.12.2010 PASSED BY THE HIGH COURT. EXT P33: COPY OF STAY EXTENSION ORDER DTD 18.1.2011 PASSED BY THIS COURT. EXT P34: COPY OF THE COVERING LETTER DTD 13.6.2011 SENT BY THE PETITIONER TO R1. EXT P34(A):COPY OF THE APPLICATION DTD 13.6.2011 SENT BY THE PETITIONER TO R1. EXT P35:COPY OF NOTICE DTD 14.7.2011 ISSUED BY DISTRICT LABOUR OFFICER TO THE PETITIONER. ``` ``` EXT P36:COPY OF THE STATEMENT DTD 22.7.2011 SENT BY R3 TO THE DISTRICT LABOUR OFFICER, MALAPPURAM. EXT P37:COPY OF STATEMENT DTD 21.7.2011 SENT BY R4 TO THE DISTRICT LABOUR OFFICER, MALAPPURAM EXT P38:COPY OF STATEMENT DTD 27.7.2011 SENT BY R5 TO THE DISTRICT LABOUR OFFICER, MALAPPURAM EXT P39: COPY OF STATEMENT DTD 20.7.2011 SENT BY R6 TO THE DISTRICT LABOUR OFFICER, MALAPPURAM. EXTP40:COPYOFORDER NO.12827/B3/2011/LBRDTD12.10.2011 PASSED BY R1 EXT P41:COPY OF COVERING LETTER DTD 25.7.2011 SENT BY DISTRICT LABOUR OFFICER, MALAPPURAM TO R1. EXT P41(A):COPY OF REPORT DTD 25.7.2011 SENT BY DISTRICT LABOUR OFFICER, MALAPPURAM TO R1. EXT P41(B):COPY OF THE PROFORMA SENT BY THE DISTRICT LABOUR OFFICER, MALAPPURAM. ``` ``` RESPONDENTS EXTS: EXTR2:COPYOFSTATEMENTOF ``` **W.P.(C) No. 32536 of 2017 and conn.cases** **42** ``` COMPREHENSIVE BENEFITS PROVIDED UNDER THE ESI SCHEME. ``` ``` TRUE COPY P.A.TO JUDGE ``` **W.P.(C) No. 32536 of 2017 and conn.cases 43** ## **`APPENDIX OF WP(C) 37647/2010`** ``` PETITIONER EXHIBITS ``` |`EXHIBIT P1:THE TRUE COPY OF `|`G.O`| |---|---| |`(RT)NO.1088/81/LBR DATED 24.08.81 `|`FOR`| |`1978-79.`|| |`EXHIBIT P2:THE TRUE COPY OF G.O(RT)`|| |`NO.1057/88/LBR-1 DATED 16.06.1988 `|`FOR`| |`1979-80.`|| |`EXHIBIT`<br>`P3:`<br>`THE`<br>`TRUE`<br>`COPY`|`OF`| |`G.O(RT)NO.1057/88/LBR-II DATED 16.6.1988`|| |`FOR 1980-81.`|| |`EXHIBIT P4: THE TRUE COPY OF `|`G.O.`| |`(RT)NO.1057/88/LBR-3 DATED 16.6.1988`|`FOR`| |`1981-1982.`|| |`EXHIBIT`<br>`P5:`<br>`THE`<br>`TRUE`<br>`COPY`|`OF`| |`G.O(RT)NO.1057/88/LBR-4 DATED 16.6.1988`|| |`FOR 1982-1983.`|| |`EXHIBIT`<br>`P6:`<br>`THE`<br>`TRUE`<br>`COPY`|`OF`| |`G.O(RT)NO.1057/88/LBR-5 DATED 16.6.1988`|| |`FOR 1983-1984.`|| |`EXHIBIT`<br>`P7:`<br>`THE`<br>`TRUE`<br>`COPY`|`OF`| |`G.O(RT)NO.195/91/LBR-1 DATED 24.1.1991`|`FOR`| |`1984-1985.`|| |`EXHIBIT`<br>`P8:`<br>`THE`<br>`TRUE`<br>`COPY`|`OF`| |`G.O(RT)NO.195/91/LBR-2 DATED 24.1.1991`|`FOR`| |`1985-86.`|| |`EXHIBIT`<br>`P9:`<br>`THE`<br>`TRUE`<br>`COPY`|`OF`| |`G.O(RT)NO.195/91/LBR-3 DATED 24.1.1991`|`FOR`| |`1986-1987.`|| |`EXHIBIT P10: THE TRUE COPY `|`OF`| |`G.O(RT)NO.195/91/LBR-4 DATED 24.1.1991`|`FOR`| |`1987-88.`|| |`EXHIBIT P11: THE TRUE COPY `|`OF`| |`G.O(RT)NO.195/91/LBR-5 DATED 24.1.1991`|`FOR`| |`1988-89.`|| |`EXHIBIT P12: THE TRUE COPY `|`OF`| |`G.O(RT)NO.195/91/LBR-6 DATED 24.1.1991`|`FOR`| |`1989-90.`|| |`EXHIBIT P13: THE TRUE COPY `|`OF`| |`G.O(RT)NO.2554/92/LBR-1 DATED 29.10.1992`|| |`FOR 1990-91.`|| |`EXHIBIT P14: THE TRUE COPY `|`OF`| **W.P.(C) No. 32536 of 2017 and conn.cases** **44** ``` G.O(RT)NO.2554/92/LBR-2 DATED 29.10.1992 FOR 1991-92. EXHIBIT P15: THE TRUE COPY OF G.O(RT)NO.2476/93/LBR-2 DATED 18.9.1993 FOR 1992-93. EXHIBIT P16: THE TRUE COPY OF G.O(RT)NO.113/94/LBR DATED 14.1.1994 FOR 1993-94. EXHIBIT P17: THE TRUE COPY OF G.O(RT)NO.1102/95/LBR DATED 20.5.1995 FOR 1994-95. EXHIBIT P18: THE TRUE COPY OF G.O(RT)NO.2014/97/LBR 5.7.1997 FOR 1995- 96. EXHIBIT P19: THE TRUE COPY OF G.O(RT)NO.3038/99/LBR DATED 17.9.1999 CONTAINING SRO NO.881/99 FOR 1996-97, SRO NO.882/99 FOR 1997-98 & SRO NO.883/99 FOR 1998-99. EXHIBIT P20: THE TRUE COPY OF G.O(RT)NO.182/2000/LBR DATED 17.1.2000 FOR 1999-2000. EXHIBIT P21: THE TRUE COPY OF G.O(RT)NO.1276/2001/LBR DATED 10.4.2001 FOR 2000-2001. EXHIBIT P22: THE TRUE COPY OF G.O(RT)NO.406/2002/LBR DATED 25.1.2002 FOR 2001-2002. EXHIBIT P23: THE TRUE COPY OF G.O(RT)NO.737/2003/LBR DATED 19.3.2003 FOR 2002-2003. EXHIBIT P24: THE TRUE COPY OF G.O(RT)NO.251/2004/LBR DATED 24.1.2004 FOR 2003-2004. EXHIBIT P25: THE TRUE COPY OF G.O(RT) NO.3344/2007/LBR DATED 13/11/2007 FOR 2004-2005 EXHIBIT P26: THE TRUE COPY OF G.O (RT) NO.1947/2008/LBR DATED 19/7/2008 FOR 2005- 2006 EXHIBIT P27: THE TRUE COPY OF G.O (RT) NO.1093/2007/LBR DATED 28/4/2008 FOR 2006- 2007 EXHIBIT P28: THE TRUE COPY OF G.O. (RT)NO.746/2010/LBR DATED 22/4/2010 FOR 2007-2008 ``` **W.P.(C) No. 32536 of 2017 and conn.cases** **45** ``` EXT P29: COPY OF GO(RT) NO.745/2010/LBR DTD 22.4.2010 FOR 2008-2009 ``` ``` EXT P30: COPY OF COVERING LETTER DTD 15.9.2009 OF THE PETITIONER ``` ``` EXT P30(A):COPY OF APPLICATION FOR EXEMPTION U/S 87 OF ESI ACT FILED BY THE PETITIONER ``` ``` EXT P31: COPY OF COVERING LETTER OF THE PETITIONER DTD 26.6.2010 ``` ``` EXT P31(A): COPY OF APPLICATION DTD 26.6.2010 SENT BY THE PETITIONER TO R1 ``` ``` EXT P32:COPY OF NOTICE DTD 16.9.2010 ISSUED BY THE DISTRICT LABOUR OFFICER ``` ``` EXT P33:COPY OF STATEMENT DTD 18.9.2010 SENT BY R3 ``` ``` EXT P34:COPY OF STATEMENT DTD 20.9.2010 SENT BY R4 ``` ``` EXT P35:COPY OF STATEMENT DTD 18.9.2010 SENT BY R5 ``` ``` EXT P36:COPY OF STATEMENT DTD 19.9.2010 SENT BY R6 TO DISTRICT LABOUR OFFICER, MALAPPURAM. ``` ``` EXTP37:COPYOFORDER NO.14815/B3/2010/LBR DTD 25.11.2010 PASSED BY R1. ``` ``` EXT P38: COPY OF COVERING LETTER DTD 10.12.2010 EXT P38(A):COPY OF REPORT DTD 24.9.2010 SENT BY DISTRICT LABOUR OFFICER, MALAPPURAM TO R1. ``` ``` RESPONDENTS EXTS: EXT R1(A):COPY OF COMPARATIVE STATEMENT ``` ``` TRUE COPY ``` ``` P.A.TO JUDGE ``` **W.P.(C) No. 32536 of 2017 and conn.cases** **46** ## **`APPENDIX OF WP(C) 6644/2013`** ``` PETITIONER EXHIBITS ``` |`EXHIBIT P1:THE TRUE COPY OF `|`G.O`| |---|---| |`(RT)NO.1088/81/LBR DATED 24.08.81 `|`FOR`| |`1978-79.`|| |`EXHIBIT P2:THE TRUE COPY OF G.O(RT)`|| |`NO.1057/88/LBR-1 DATED 16.06.1988 `|`FOR`| |`1979-80.`|| |`EXHIBIT`<br>`P3:`<br>`THE`<br>`TRUE`<br>`COPY`|`OF`| |`G.O(RT)NO.1057/88/LBR-II DATED 16.6.1988`|| |`FOR 1980-81.`|| |`EXHIBIT P4: THE TRUE COPY OF `|`G.O.`| |`(RT)NO.1057/88/LBR-3 DATED 16.6.1988`|`FOR`| |`1981-1982.`|| |`EXHIBIT`<br>`P5:`<br>`THE`<br>`TRUE`<br>`COPY`|`OF`| |`G.O(RT)NO.1057/88/LBR-4 DATED 16.6.1988`|| |`FOR 1982-1983.`|| |`EXHIBIT`<br>`P6:`<br>`THE`<br>`TRUE`<br>`COPY`|`OF`| |`G.O(RT)NO.1057/88/LBR-5 DATED 16.6.1988`|| |`FOR 1983-1984.`|| |`EXHIBIT`<br>`P7:`<br>`THE`<br>`TRUE`<br>`COPY`|`OF`| |`G.O(RT)NO.195/91/LBR-1 DATED 24.1.1991`|`FOR`| |`1984-1985.`|| |`EXHIBIT`<br>`P8:`<br>`THE`<br>`TRUE`<br>`COPY`|`OF`| |`G.O(RT)NO.195/91/LBR-2 DATED 24.1.1991`|`FOR`| |`1985-86.`|| |`EXHIBIT`<br>`P9:`<br>`THE`<br>`TRUE`<br>`COPY`|`OF`| |`G.O(RT)NO.195/91/LBR-3 DATED 24.1.1991`|`FOR`| |`1986-1987.`|| |`EXHIBIT P10: THE TRUE COPY `|`OF`| |`G.O(RT)NO.195/91/LBR-4 DATED 24.1.1991`|`FOR`| |`1987-88.`|| |`EXHIBIT P11: THE TRUE COPY `|`OF`| |`G.O(RT)NO.195/91/LBR-5 DATED 24.1.1991`|`FOR`| |`1988-89.`|| |`EXHIBIT P12: THE TRUE COPY `|`OF`| |`G.O(RT)NO.195/91/LBR-6 DATED 24.1.1991`|`FOR`| |`1989-90.`|| |`EXHIBIT P13: THE TRUE COPY `|`OF`| |`G.O(RT)NO.2554/92/LBR-1 DATED 29.10.1992`|| |`FOR 1990-91.`|| |`EXHIBIT P14: THE TRUE COPY `|`OF`| |`G.O(RT)NO.2554/92/LBR-2 DATED 29.10.1992`|| **W.P.(C) No. 32536 of 2017 and conn.cases** **47** ``` FOR 1991-92. EXHIBIT P15: THE TRUE COPY OF G.O(RT)NO.2476/93/LBR-2 DATED 18.9.1993 FOR 1992-9. EXHIBIT P16: THE TRUE COPY OF G.O(RT)NO.113/94/LBR DATED 14.1.1994 FOR 1993-94. EXHIBIT P17: THE TRUE COPY OF G.O(RT)NO.1102/95/LBR DATED 20.5.1995 FOR 1994-95. EXHIBIT P18: THE TRUE COPY OF G.O(RT)NO.2014/97/LBR 5.7.1997 FOR 1995- 96. EXHIBIT P19: THE TRUE COPY OF G.O(RT)NO.3038/99/LBR DATED 17.9.1999 CONTAINING SRO NO.881/99 FOR 1996-97, SRO NO.882/99 FOR 1997-98 & SRO NO.883/99 FOR 1998-99. EXHIBIT P20: THE TRUE COPY OF G.O(RT)NO.182/2000/LBR DATED 17.1.2000 FOR 1999-2000. EXHIBIT P21: THE TRUE COPY OF G.O(RT)NO.1276/2001/LBR DATED 10.4.2001 FOR 2000-2001. EXHIBIT P22: THE TRUE COPY OF G.O(RT)NO.406/2002/LBR DATED 25.1.2002 FOR 2001-2002. EXHIBIT P23: THE TRUE COPY OF G.O(RT)NO.737/2003/LBR DATED 19.3.2003 FOR 2002-2003. EXHIBIT P24: THE TRUE COPY OF G.O(RT)NO.251/2004/LBR DATED 24.1.2004 FOR 2003-2004. EXHIBIT P25: THE TRUE COPY OF G.O(RT) NO.3344/2007/LBR DATED 13/11/2007 FOR 2004-2005 EXHIBIT P26: THE TRUE COPY OF G.O (RT) NO.1947/2008/LBR DATED 19/7/2008 FOR 2005- 2006 EXHIBIT P27: THE TRUE COPY OF G.O (RT) NO.1947/2008/LBR DATED 28/4/2008 FOR 2006- 2007 EXHIBIT P28: THE TRUE COPY OF G.O. (RT)NO.746/2010/LBR DATED 22/4/2010 FOR 2007-2008 EXHIBIT P29: THE TRUE COPY OF G.O (RT) ``` **W.P.(C) No. 32536 of 2017 and conn.cases** **48** ``` NO.745/2010/LBR DATED 22/4/2010 FOR 2008- 2009 ``` ``` EXHIBIT P30: THE TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER OF THE FIRST RESPONDENT DATED 14/6/2012 ``` ``` EXHIBIT P31: THE TRUE COPY OF THE STAY ORDER DATED 7/8/2012. ``` ``` EXHIBIT P32: THE TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER NO.14815/B3/2010/LBR DATED 25/11/2010 OF THE FIRST RESPONDENT. ``` ``` EXHIBIT P33: THE TRUE COPY OF THE STAY ORDER DATED 20/12/2010 PASSED BY THE HON'BLE HIGH COURT IN WPC NO.37647/2010 ``` ``` EXHIBIT P34: THE TRUE COPY OF THE STAY EXTENSION ORDER DATED 18/1/2011 PASSED BY THE HON'BLE HIGH COURT IN WPC NO.37647/2010. ``` ``` EXHIBIT P35: THE TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER NO.12827/B3/2011/LBR DATED 12/10/2011 OF THE FIRST RESPONDENT. ``` ``` EXHIBIT P36: THE TRUE COPY OF THE STAY ORDER DATED 4/11/2011 PASSED BY THE HON'BLE HIGH COURT IN WPC NO.29454/2011. EXHIBIT P37: THE TRUE COPY OF THE COVERING LETTER OF THE PETITIONER DATED 25/06/2012 EXHIBIT P37(A): THE TRUE COPY OF THE APPLICATION FOR EXEMPTION U/S.87 OF THE ESI ACT OF THE PETITIONER DATED 25/6/2012. EXHIBIT P38: THE TRUE COPY OF THE NOTICE DATED 28/7/2012 ISSUED BY THE DISTRICT LABOUR OFFICER, MALAPPURAM. EXHIBIT P39: TRUE COPY OF THE STATEMENT DATED 9/8/2012 SENT BY THE THIRD RESPONDENT. EXHIBIT P40: TRUE COPY OF THE STATEMENT DATED 13/8/2012 SENT BY THE FOURTH RESPONDENT. EXHIBIT P41:TRUE COPY OF THE STATEMENT DATED 9/8/2012 SENT BY THE FIFTH RESPONDENT. EXHIBIT P42: TRUE COPY OF THE STATEMENT DATED 9/8/2012 SENT BY THE SIXTH RESPONDENT. EXHIBIT P43: THE TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER NO.16173/B3/2/LBR DATED 14/11/2012 OF THE FIRST RESPONDENT. EXHIBIT P44: THE TRUE COPY OF THE REPORT ``` **W.P.(C) No. 32536 of 2017 and conn.cases** **49** ``` OF THE DISTRICT LABOUR OFFICER, MALAPPURAM DATED 11/10/2012 ``` ``` EXHIBIT P45: THE TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 12/12/2012 OF THE PETITIONER ``` ``` EXHIBIT P46: THE TRUE COPY OF THE REPORT OF THE DISTRICT LABOUR OFFICER, MALAPPURAM DATED 24/9/2010 ``` ``` EXHIBIT P47:THE TRUE COPY OF THE REPORT OF THE DISTRICT LABOUR OFFICER, MALAPPURAM DATED 25/7/2011 ``` ``` RESPONDENTS EXTS: NIL ``` ``` TRUE COPY ``` ``` P.A.TO JUDGE ``` **W.P.(C) No. 32536 of 2017 and conn.cases** **50** ## **`APPENDIX OF WP(C) 18456/2012`** |`PETITIONER EXHIBITS`|| |---|---| |`EXHIBIT P1`|`THE TRUE COPY OF G.O(RT) NO.1088/81/LBR`| ||`DATED 24.08.81 FOR 1978-79.`| |`EXHIBIT P2`|`THE TRUE COPY OF G.O(RT) NO.1057/88/LBR-1`| ||`DATED 16.06.1988 FOR 1979-80.`| |`EXHIBIT P3`|`THE TRUE COPY OF G.O(RT) NO.1057/88/LBR-1I`| ||`DATED 16.06.1988 FOR 1980-81.`| |`EXHIBIT P4`|`THE TRUE COPY OF G.O(RT) NO.1057/88/LBR-3`| ||`DATED 16.06.1988 FOR 1981-82.`| |`EXHIBIT P5`|`THE TRUE COPY OF G.O(RT) NO.1057/88/LBR-4`| ||`DATED 16.06.1988 FOR 1982-83.`| |`EXHIBIT P6`|`THE TRUE COPY OF G.O(RT) NO.1057/88/LBR-5`| ||`DATED 16.06.1988 FOR 1983-84.`| |`EXHIBIT P7`|`THE TRUE COPY OF G.O(RT) NO.195/91/LBR-1`| ||`DATED 24.1.1991 FOR 1984-85.`| |`EXHIBIT P8`|`THE TRUE COPY OF G.O(RT) NO.195/91/LBR-2`| ||`DATED 24.1.1991 FOR 1985-86.`| |`EXHIBIT P9`|`THE TRUE COPY OF G.O(RT) NO.195/91/LBR-3`| ||`DATED 24.1.1991 FOR 1986-87.`| |`EXHIBIT P10`|`THE TRUE COPY OF G.O(RT) NO.195/91/LBR-4`| ||`DATED 24.1.1991 FOR 1987-88.`| |`EXHIBIT P11`|`THE TRUE COPY OF G.O(RT) NO.195/91/LBR-5`| ||`DATED 24.1.1991 FOR 1988-89.`| |`EXHIBIT P12`|`THE TRUE COPY OF G.O(RT) NO.195/91/LBR-6`| ||`DATED 24.1.1991 FOR 1989-90.`| |`EXHIBIT P13`|`THE TRUE COPY OF G.O(RT) NO.2554/92/LBR-1`| ||`DATED 29.10.1992 FOR 1990-91.`| |`EXHIBIT P14`|`THE TRUE COPY OF G.O(RT) NO.2554/92/LBR-2`| ||`DATED 29.10.1992 FOR 1991-92.`| |`EXHIBIT P15`|`THE TRUE COPY OF G.O(RT) NO.2476/93/LBR-2`| ||`DATED 18.9.1993 FOR 1992-93.`| |`EXHIBIT P16`|`THE TRUE COPY OF G.O(RT) NO.113/94/LBR`| ||`DATED 14.1.1994 FOR 1993-94.`| |`EXHIBIT P17`|`THE TRUE COPY OF G.O(RT) NO.1102/95/LBR`| ||`DATED 20.5.1995 FOR 1994-95.`| |`EXHIBIT P18`|`THE TRUE COPY OF G.O(RT) NO.2014/97/LBR`| ||`DATED 5.7.1997 FOR 1995-96.`| |`EXHIBIT P19`|`THE TRUE COPY OF G.O(RT) NO.3038/99/LBR`| ||`DATED 17.9.1999 CONTAINING SRO NO.881/99`| ||`FOR 1996-97, SRO NO. 882/99 FOR 1997 -98 &`| **W.P.(C) No. 32536 of 2017 and conn.cases** **51** ||`SRO NO.883/99 FOR 1998-99.`| |---|---| |`EXHIBIT P20`|`THE TRUE COPY OF G.O(RT) NO.182/2000/LBR`| ||`DATED 17.1.2000 FOR 1999-2000.`| |`EXHIBIT P21`|`THE TRUE COPY OF G.O(RT) NO.1276/2001/LBR`| ||`DATED 10.4.2001 FOR 2000-2001.`| |`EXHIBIT P22`|`THE TRUE COPY OF G.O(RT) NO.406/2002/LBR`| ||`DATED 25.1.2002 FOR 2001-2002.`| |`EXHIBIT P23`|`THE TRUE COPY OF G.O(RT) NO.737/2003/LBR`| ||`DATED 19.3.2003 FOR 2002-2003.`| |`EXHIBIT P24`|`THE TRUE COPY OF G.O(RT) NO.251/2004/LBR`| ||`DATED 24.1.2004 FOR 2003-2004.`| |`EXHIBIT P25`|`THE TRUE COPY OF G.O(RT) NO.3344/2007/LBR`| ||`DATED 13.11.2007 FOR 2004-2005.`| |`EXHIBIT P26`|`THE TRUE COPY OF G.O (RT) NO.1947/2008/LBR`| ||`DATED 19.7.2008 FOR 2005-2006.`| |`EXHIBIT P27`|`THE TRUE COPY OF G.O (RT) NO.1093/2007/LBR`| ||`DATED 28.4.2008 FOR 2006-2007.`| |`EXHIBIT P28`|`THE TRUE COPY OF G.O (RT) NO.746/2010/LBR`| ||`DATED 22.4.2010 FOR 2007-2008.`| |`EXHIBIT P29`|`THE TRUE COPY OF G.O (RT) NO.745/2010/LBR`| ||`DATED 22.4.2010 FOR 2008-2009.`| |`EXHIBIT P30`|`THE TRUE COPY OF THE COVERING LETTER DTD`| ||`15.9.2009 OF THE PETITIONER`| |`EXHIBIT P30(A)`|`THE TRUE COPY OF THE APPLICATION FOR`| ||`EXEMPTION U/S 87 OF ESI ACT FILED BY THE`| ||`PETITIONER`| |`EXHIBIT P31`|`THE`<br>`TRUE`<br>`COPY`<br>`OF`<br>`THE`<br>`ORDER`| ||`NO.14815/B3/2010/LBR DATED 25.11.2010 OF`| ||`THE FIRST RESPONDENT.`| |`EXHIBIT P32`|`THE TRUE COPY OF THE STAY ORDER DATED`| ||`20.12.2010 PASSED BY THE HON'BLE HIGH`| ||`COURT IN W.P.(C) NO.37647/2010.`| |`EXHIBIT P33`|`THE TRUE COPY OF THE STAY EXTENSION ORDER`| ||`DATED 18.1.2011 PASSED BY THE HON'BLE HIGH`| ||`COURT IN W.P.(C) NO.37647/2010.`| |`EXHIBIT P34`|`THE TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DTD 12.10.2011`| ||`PASSED BY R1`| |`EXHIBIT P35`|`THE TRUE COPY OF THE INTERIM ORDER DATED`| ||`4.11.2011 PASSED BY THE HON'BLE HIGH COURT`| ||`IN WP(C) NO.29454 OF 2011.`| |`EXHIBIT P36`|`THE TRUE COPY OF THE NOTICE DATED 3.3.2010`| ||`ISSUED BY THE DISTRICT LABOUR OFFICER TO`| ||`THE PETITIONER.`| |`EXHIBIT P37`|`THE TRUE COPY OF THE STATEMENT DTD`| ||`15.3.2010 SENT BY R3 TO THE DISTRICT`| **W.P.(C) No. 32536 of 2017 and conn.cases** **52** ||`LABOUR OFFICER, MALAPPURAM.`| |---|---| |`EXHIBIT P38`|`TRUE COPY OF STATEMENT DTD 17.3.2010 SENT`| ||`BY R4 TO DISTRICT LABOUR OFFICER,`| ||`MALAPPURAM.`| |`EXHIBIT P39`|`TRUE COPY OF THE STATEMENT DTD 16.3.2010`| ||`SENT BY R5 TO DISTRICT LABOUR OFFICER,`| ||`MALAPPURAM`| |`EXHIBIT P40`|`TRUE COPY OF THE STATEMENT DTD 17.3.2010`| ||`SENT BY R6 TO DISTRICT LABOUR OFFICER,`| ||`MALAPPURAM.`| |`EXHIBIT P41`|`TRUE COPY OF THE COVERING LETTER DATED`| ||`15.09.2009 SENT BY THE PETITION ER TO`| ||`REGIONAL DIRECTOR, ESI CORPORATION.`| |`EXHIBIT P42`|`TRUE COPY OF THE ACKNOWLEDGEMENT CARD OF`| ||`ESI CORPORATION FOR RECEIPTS OF EXT P30 &`| ||`30(A) ISSUED BY THE DEPARTMENT OF POST,`| ||`INDIA`| |`EXHIBIT P43`|`TRUE COPY OF THE ACKNOWLEDGEMENT CARD OF`| ||`R1 FOR RECEIPTS OF EXT P30 & 30(A) DTD`| ||`19.9.2009 ISSUED BY DEPARTMENT OF POST,`| ||`INDIA`| |`EXHIBIT P44`|`THE`<br>`TRUE`<br>`COPY`<br>`OF`<br>`THE`<br>`ORDER`| ||`NO.22690/B3/2009/LBR DTD 14.6.2012 ISSUED`| ||`BY R1.`| |`EXHIBIT P45`|`THE TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER DTD 17.7.2012`| ||`OF PUBLIC INFORMATION OFFICER TO THE`| ||`PETITIONER.`| |`EXHIBIT P45(A)`|`THE TRUE COPY OF THE REPORT DTD 9.4.2010`| ||`SENT BY DISTRICT LABOUR OFFICER,`| ||`MALAPPURAM TO R2.`| |`EXHIBIT P45(B)`|`THE TRUE COPY OF THE PROFORMA SENT BY THE`| ||`DISTRICT LABOUR OFFICER, MALAPPURAM TO R2.`| |`RESPONDENTS`|`EXTS: NIL`| ``` TRUE COPY ``` ``` P.A.TO JUDGE ``` **W.P.(C) No. 32536 of 2017 and conn.cases** **53** ## **`APPENDIX OF WP(C) 24786/2014`** ``` PETITIONER EXHIBITS ``` ``` EXHIBIT P1 THE TRUE COPY OF G.O(RT) NO 1088/81/LBR DATED 24-08-81 FOR 1978-79 EXHIBI P2 THE TRUE COPY OF G.O(RT) NO 1057/88/LBR-1 DATED 16-06-1988 FOR 1979-80 EXHIBIT P3 THE TRUE COPY OF G.O(RT) NO 1057/88/LBR-1I DATED 16-06-1988 FOR 1980- 81 ``` ``` EXHIBIT P4 THE TRUE COPY OF G.O(RT) NO 1057/88/LBR-3 DATED 16-06-1988 FOR 1981-82 EXHIBT P5 THE TRUE COPY OF G.O(RT) NO 1057/88/LBR-4 DATED 16-06-1988 FOR 1982-83 EXHIBIT P6 THE TRUE COPY OF G.O(RT) NO 1057/88/LBR-5 DATED 16-06-1988 FOR 1983-84 EXHIBIT P7 THE TRUE COPY OF G.O(RT) NO 195/91/LBR-1 DATED 24-1-1991 FOR 1984-85 EXHIBIT P8 THE TRUE COPY OF G.O(RT) NO 195/91/LBR-2 DATED 24-1-1991 FOR 1985-86 EXHIBITP9 TH TRUE COPY OF G.O(RT) NO 195/91/LBR-3 DATED 24-1-1991 FOR `1986-87 EXHIBITP10 THE TRUE COPY OF G.O(RT) NO 195/91/LBR-4 DATED 24-1-1991 FOR 1987-88 EXHIBIT P11 THE TRUE COPY OF G.O(RT) NO 195/91/LBR-5 DATED 24-1-1991 FOR 1988-89 EXHIBIT P12 THE TRUE COPY OF G.O(RT) NO 195/91/LBR-6 DATED 24-1-1991 FOR 1989-90 EXHIBIT P13 TH TRUE COPY OF G.O(RT) NO 1554/92/LBR-1 DATED 29-10-1992 FOR 1990-91 EXHIBIT P14 THE TRUE COPY OF G.O(RT) NO 2554/92/LBR-2 DATED 29-10-1992 FOR 1991-92 EXHIBIT P15 THE TRUE COPY OF G.O(RT) NO 2476/93/LBR-2 DATED 18-09--1993 FOR 1992- 93 ``` ``` EXHIBIT P16 THE TRUE COPY OF G.O(RT) NO 113/94/LBR DATED 14-1-1994 FOR 1993-94 EXHIBIT P17 THE TRUE COPY OF (RT) NO 1102/95/LBR DATD 20-05-1995 FOR 1994-95 EXT P18 COPY OF GO(RT)NO.2014/97/LBR DTD 5.7.1997 FOR 1995-96 EXT P19 COPY OF GO(RT) NO.3038/99/LBR DTD 17.9.1999 CONTAINING SRO NO.881/99 FOR ``` **W.P.(C) No. 32536 of 2017 and conn.cases** **54** ``` 1996-97 SRO NO.882/99 FOR 1997-98 & SRO NO.883/99 FOR 1998-99 EXT P20 COPY OF GO(RT) NO.182/2000/LBR DTD 17.1.2000 FOR 1999-2000 EXT P21 COPY OF GO(RT)NO.1276/2001/LBR DTD 10.4.2001 FOR 2000-2001 EXT P22 COPY OF GO(RT) NO.406/2002/LBR DTD 25.1.2002 FOR 2001-2002 EXT P23 COPY OF GO(RT) NO.737/2003/LBR DTD 19.3.2003 FOR 2002-2003 EXT P24 COPY OF GO(RT)NO.251/2004/LBR DTD 24.1.2004 FOR 2003-2004 EXT P25 COPY OF GO(RT)NO. 3344/2007/LBR DTD 13.11.2007 FOR 2004-2005 EXT P26 COPY OF GO(RT)NO.1947/2008/LBR DTD 19.7.2008 FOR 2005-2006 EXT P27 COPY OF GO(RT)NO.1093/2007/LBR DTD 28.4.2008 FOR 2006-2007 EXT P28 COPY OF GO(RT)NO.746/2010/LBR DTD 22.4.2010 FOR 2007-2008 EXT P29 COPY OF GO(RT)NO.745/2010/LBR DTD 22.4.2010 FOR 2008-2009 EXT P30 COPY OF ORDER OF R1 DTD 14.6.2012 EXT P31 COPY OF STAY ORDER DTD 7.8.2012 EXT P32 COPY OF ORDER NO.14815/B3/2010/LBR DTD 25.11.2010 OF R1. EXT P33 COPY OF STAY ORDER DTD 20.12.2010 PASSED BY THIS COURT IN WP© NO.37647/2010 EXT P34 COPY OF STAY EXTENSION ORDER DTD 18.1.2011 PASSED BY THIS COURT IN WP© NO.37647/2010 EXT P35 COPY OF ORDER NO.12827/B3/2011/LBR DTD 12.10.2011 OF R1 EXT P36 COPY OF STAY ORDER DTD 4.11.2011 PASSED BY THIS COURT IN WP© NO.29454 OF 2011 EXT P37 COPY OF ORDER NO.16173/B3/2/LBR DTD 14.11.2012 OF R1. EXT P38 COPY OF STAY ORDER DTD 11.3.2013 PASSED BY THIS COURT IN WP© NO.6644 OF 2013 EXT P39 COPY OF COVERING LETTER DTD 14.6.2013 OF THE PETITIONERS EXT P39(A) COPY OF APPLICATION FOR EXEMPTION UNDER SECTION 87 OF ESI ACT OF THE PETITIONER DTD 14.6.2013 EXT P40 COPY OF STATEMENT DTD 13.8.2012 SENT BY R4. EXT P41 COPY OF STATEMENT DTD 14.8.2013 ``` **W.P.(C) No. 32536 of 2017 and conn.cases** **55** ``` SENT BY R3. EXT P42 COPY OF STATEMENT DTD 24.8.2013 SENT BY R4 EXT P43 COPY OF STATEMENT DTD 26.8.2013 SENT BY R5 EXT P44 COPY OF STATEMENT DTD 14.8.2013 SENT BY R6 EXT P45 COPY OF ORDER NO.13965/B3/2013/LBR DTD 16.8.2014 PASSED BY R1. EXT P46 COPY OF LETTER DTD 5.9.2013 SEND BY DISTRICT LABOUR OFFICER, MALAPPURAM TO R1 ``` ``` EXT P46(A) COPY OF REPORT OF THE DISTRICT LABOUR OFFICER, MALAPPURAM DTD 5.9.2013 TO R2. ``` ``` RESPONDENT EXHIBITS EXHIBIT R2. ``` ``` TRUE COPY OF THE STATEMENT OF THE COMPARATIVE STUDY OF THE BENEFITS PROVIDED BY THE ESI CORPORATION. ``` ``` TRUE COPY ``` ``` P.A.TO JUDGE ``` **W.P.(C) No. 32536 of 2017 and conn.cases** **56** ## **`APPENDIX OF WP(C) 32536/2017`** |`PETITIONER EXHIBITS`|| |---|---| |`EXHIBIT P1`|`THE TRUE COPY OF G.O(RT) NO.1088/81/LBR`| ||`DATED 24.08.81 FOR 1978-79.`| |`EXHIBIT P2`|`THE TRUE COPY OF G.O(RT) NO.1057/88/LBR-1`| ||`DATED 16.06.1988 FOR 1979-80.`| |`EXHIBIT P3`|`THE TRUE COPY OF G.O(RT) NO.1057/88/LBR-1I`| ||`DATED 16.06.1988 FOR 1980-81.`| |`EXHIBIT P4`|`THE TRUE COPY OF G.O(RT) NO.1057/88/LBR-3`| ||`DATED 16.06.1988 FOR 1981-82.`| |`EXHIBIT P5`|`THE TRUE COPY OF G.O(RT) NO.1057/88/LBR-4`| ||`DATED 16.06.1988 FOR 1982-83.`| |`EXHIBIT P6`|`THE TRUE COPY OF G.O(RT) NO.1057/88/LBR-5`| ||`DATED 16.06.1988 FOR 1983-84.`| |`EXHIBIT P7`|`THE TRUE COPY OF G.O(RT) NO.195/91/LBR-1`| ||`DATED 24.1.1991 FOR 1984-85.`| |`EXHIBIT P8`|`THE TRUE COPY OF G.O(RT) NO.195/91/LBR-2`| ||`DATED 24.1.1991 FOR 1985-86.`| |`EXHIBIT P9`|`THE TRUE COPY OF G.O(RT) NO.195/91/LBR-3`| ||`DATED 24.1.1991 FOR 1986-87.`| |`EXHIBIT P10`|`THE TRUE COPY OF G.O(RT) NO.195/91/LBR-4`| ||`DATED 24.1.1991 FOR 1987-88.`| |`EXHIBIT P11`|`THE TRUE COPY OF G.O(RT) NO.195/91/LBR-5`| ||`DATED 24.1.1991 FOR 1988-89.`| |`EXHIBIT P12`|`THE TRUE COPY OF G.O(RT) NO.195/91/LBR-6`| ||`DATED 24.1.1991 FOR 1989-90.`| |`EXHIBIT P13`|`THE TRUE COPY OF G.O(RT) NO.2554/92/LBR-1`| ||`DATED 29.10.1992 FOR 1990-91.`| |`EXHIBIT P14`|`THE TRUE COPY OF G.O(RT) NO.2554/92/LBR-2`| ||`DATED 29.10.1992 FOR 1991-92.`| |`EXHIBIT P15`|`THE TRUE COPY OF G.O(RT) NO.2476/93/LBR-2`| ||`DATED 18.9.1993 FOR 1992-93.`| |`EXHIBIT P16`|`THE TRUE COPY OF G.O(RT) NO.113/94/LBR`| ||`DATED 14.1.1994 FOR 1993-94.`| |`EXHIBIT P17`|`THE TRUE COPY OF G.O(RT) NO.1102/95/LBR`| ||`DATED 20.5.1995 FOR 1994-95.`| |`EXHIBIT P18`|`THE TRUE COPY OF G.O(RT) NO.2014/97/LBR`| ||`DATED 5.7.1997 FOR 1995-96.`| |`EXHIBIT P19`|`THE TRUE COPY OF G.O(RT) NO.3038/99/LBR`| ||`DATED 17.9.1999 CONTAINING SRO NO.881/99`| ||`FOR 1996-97, SRO NO. 882/99 FOR 1997 -98 &`| ||`SRO NO.883/99 FOR 1998-99.`| |`EXHIBIT P20`|`THE TRUE COPY OF G.O(RT) NO.182/2000/LBR`| **W.P.(C) No. 32536 of 2017 and conn.cases** **57** ||`DATED 17.1.2000 FOR 1999-2000.`|| |---|---|---| |`EXHIBIT P21`|`THE TRUE COPY OF G.O(RT) NO.1276/2001/LBR`|| ||`DATED 10.4.2001 FOR 2000-2001.`|| |`EXHIBIT P22`|`THE TRUE COPY OF G.O(RT) NO.406/2002/LBR`|| ||`DATED 25.1.2002 FOR 2001-2002.`|| |`EXHIBIT P23`|`THE TRUE COPY OF G.O(RT) NO.737/2003/LBR`|| ||`DATED 19.3.2003 FOR 2002-2003.`|| |`EXHIBIT P24`|`THE TRUE COPY OF G.O(RT) NO.251/2004/LBR`|| ||`DATED 24.1.2004 FOR 2003-2004.`|| |`EXHIBIT P25`|`THE TRUE COPY OF G.O(RT) NO.3344/2007/LBR`|| ||`DATED 13.11.2007 FOR 2004-2005.`|| |`EXHIBIT P26`|`THE TRUE COPY OF G.O (RT) NO.1947/2008/LBR`|| ||`DATED 19.7.2008 FOR 2005-2006.`|| |`EXHIBIT P27`|`THE TRUE COPY OF G.O (RT) NO.1093/2007/LBR`|| ||`DATED 28.4.2008 FOR 2006-2007.`|| |`EXHIBIT P28`|`THE TRUE COPY OF G.O (RT) NO.746/2010/LBR`|| ||`DATED 22.4.2010 FOR 2007-2008.`|| |`EXHIBIT P29`|`THE TRUE COPY OF G.O (RT) NO.745/2010/LBR`|| ||`DATED 22.4.2010 FOR 2008-2009.`|| |`EXHIBIT P30`|`THE TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER OF THE`|`FIRST`| ||`RESPONDENT DATED 14.6.2012.`|| |`EXHIBIT P31`|`THE TRUE COPY OF THE STAY ORDER`|`DATED`| ||`7.8.2012.`|| |`EXHIBIT P32`|`THE`<br>`TRUE`<br>`COPY`<br>`OF`<br>`THE`|`ORDER`| ||`NO.14815/B3/2010/LBR DATED 25.11.2010 OF`|| ||`THE FIRST RESPONDENT.`|| |`EXHIBIT P33`|`THE TRUE COPY OF THE STAY ORDER`|`DATED`| ||`20.12.2010 PASSED BY THE HON'BLE `|`HIGH`| ||`COURT IN W.P.(C) NO.37647/2010.`|| |`EXHIBIT P34`|`THE TRUE COPY OF THE STAY EXTENSION`|`ORDER`| ||`DATED 18.1.2011 PASSED BY THE HON'BLE`|`HIGH`| ||`COURT IN W.P.(C) NO.37647/2010.`|| |`EXHIBIT P35`|`THE`<br>`TRUE`<br>`COPY`<br>`OF`<br>`THE`|`ORDER`| ||`NO.12827/B3/2011/LBR DATED 12.10.2011 OF`|| ||`THE FIRST RESPONDENT.`|| |`EXHIBIT P36`|`THE TRUE COPY OF THE STAY ORDER`|`DATED`| ||`4.11.2011 PASSED BY THE HON'BLE HIGH`|`COURT`| ||`IN WP(C) NO.29454 OF 2011.`|| |`EXHIBIT P37`|`THE TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER `|`DATED`| ||`14.11.2012.`|| |`EXHIBIT P38`|`THE TRUE COPY OF THE STAY ORDER`|`DATED`| ||`11.3.2013 PASSED BY THE HON'BLE HIGH`|`COURT`| ||`IN WP(C) NO.6644 OF 2013.`|| |`EXHIBIT P39`|`TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 16.8.2014.`|| |`EXHIBIT P40`|`TRUE COPY OF THE STAY ORDER `|`DATED`| **W.P.(C) No. 32536 of 2017 and conn.cases** **58** ``` 24.10.2014 PASSED BY THE HON'BLE HIGH COURT IN WP(C) NO.24786 OF 2014. ``` ``` EXHIBIT P41TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER G.O.(P) NO. 148/2015/LBR DATED 28.9.2015. EXHIBIT P42TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 16.06.2015. EXHIBIT P42(A)TRUE COPY OF THE APPLICATION DATED 16.06.2015. ``` ``` EXHIBIT P43TRUE COPY OF TE STATEMENT DATED 12.09.2015 SENT BY THE THIRD RESPONDENT. EXHIBIT P44THE TRUE COPY OF THE STATEMENT DATED 14.09.2015 SENT BY THE FOURTH RESPONDENT. EXHIBIT P45THE TRUE COPY OF THE STATEMENT DATED 15.09.2015 SENT BY THE FIFTH RESPONDENT. EXHIBIT P46THE TRUE COPY OF THE STATEMENT DATED 15.09.2015 SENT BY THE SIXTH RESPONDENT. EXHIBIT P47THETRUECOPYOFTHEORDER NO.12901/B3/2015/LBR DATED 13.9.2017. ``` ``` RESPONDENTS EXTS: NIL ``` ``` TRUE COPY ``` ``` P.A.TO JUDGE ```