The main legal point established in the judgment is that the denial of exemption without providing an opportunity of hearing and reliance on undisclosed documents prejudiced the petitioner, violating the principles of natural justice.

JUDGMENT

Raja Basu Chowdhury, J. - The present writ application has been filed inter alia praying for a direction upon the respondent nos. 1 and 2 to grant exemption under Section 87 of the Employees' State Insurance Act, 1948 (hereinafter referred to as the 'said Act') for the period April 2019 to March 2020. The petitioner no.1 is an existing company incorporated under the Companies Act, 1956. The petitioners claim that all its employees and their family members are eligible for medical treatment at the cost of the petitioner no.1 at Sri Aurobindo Seva Kendra at 1H, Gariahat Road (South), Jodhpur Park, Kolkata 700068, which is a modern, self-sufficient hospital having outdoor, indoor operation theatre with investigation facilities, including C.T. Scan and M.R.I. A management policy is also in place for providing medical treatment to the employees at the cost of the petitioner no.1, which also includes medical insurance. Details of facilities as are made available to the employees have been disclosed in the application.

2. Mr. Dasgupta learned advocate, appearing in support of the aforesaid application submits that the medical benefits offered by the petitioner no.1 are more beneficial and are superior to those as are made available under the Employees' State Insurance Scheme (hereinafter referred to the 'said scheme'). The employees of the petitioner no.1 in the past had made representations, requesting the petitioner no.1 to seek exemption under Section 87 of the said act.

3. The respondent no. 2 had since on the basis of an application, in proforma - A, had granted the petitioner no. 1 an exemption, under section 87 of the said act, for the period 1st April, 2012 to 31st March, 2013. Since then, from time to time, the petitioner no.1 had applied in Proforma - A, detailing the medical benefits and other allied facilities, provided to the employees of the petitioner no.1, and had sought for exemption under section 87 of the said Act. According to the petitioners, the benefits offered by the petitioner no.1, is far superior to those available under the said scheme. From time to time the respondent nos. 1 and 2, upon scrutinizing the applications made by the petitioners had granted exemption under section 87 of the said Act, at least till the year 2016-17. Unfortunately, despite there being no change in the circumstances, the application made by the petitioner no.1 on 28th December, 2016 for the period 2017-18, was rejected by an order dated 8th December, 2017. The aforesaid order was an unreasoned order, no opportunity of hearing was provided to the petitioners.

4. Challenging the aforesaid order dated 8th December, 2017 the petitioners had filed a writ application before this Hon'ble Court, being WP No. 4633 (W) of 2018. By a judgment and order dated 25th February, 2019 this Hon'ble Court upon taking note of the fact, that the aforesaid order was passed by the respondent no.2, without granting an opportunity of hearing to the petitioners, set aside the same by directing the respondent no.2 to consider the petitioners application for exemption under section 87 of the said Act, afresh, after granting an opportunity of hearing to the petitioners.

5. Drawing attention of this Court to section 87 of the said Act, Mr. Dasgupta submits that since no permanent exemption can be granted, an application for renewal of an exemption is required to be made, three months prior to the expiry of the period of exemption. In due compliance of the aforesaid provision, the petitioner no.1 had made an application for renewal of the exemption on 11th December, 2018 for the period 2019-20. Such an application was filed along with Proforma - A, which, inter alia, included a comparative statement, details of medical benefits and other allied facilities provided to the employees of the petitioner no.1, as is required for renewal. Additionally, declarations given by the employees of the petitioner no.1 stating they do not want to be covered by the said Act