The Employees State Insurance Act, 1948 applies to educational institutions, affirming their classification as 'establishments' to provide social security benefits to employees, regardless of the institutions' non-commercial nature.

JUDGMENT :

AMITENDRA KISHORE PRASAD, J.

1. In these bunch of cases, the petitioners have challenged the notification dated 27.10.2005 (Annexure P-1) published in Chhattisgarh Gazette under section 1(5) of the Employees State Insurance Act, 1948 and the entire proceedings initiated by respondent no.2 by its notice dated 24.11.2008 and consequent order dated 18.12.2008 (Annexure P-2) and order dated 05.01.2009 and 06.01.2009 (Annexure P-3).

2. Heard Mr. Sourabh Sharma & Mr. Vinod Deshmukh, Counsel for the petitioners. Mr. Atanu Ghosh, Dy. G.A. for the State and Mr. Pranav Saxena, Counsel for the respondent- Employees State Insurance Corporation.

3. In these writ petitions, the Respondent No. 1 issued a notification under sub-section (5) of Section 1 of the Employees’ State Insurance Act, 1948, bringing educational institutions within the scope of the Act, effective from 01.04.2006, as published in the Chhattisgarh Gazette on 28.11.2005. Subsequently, Respondent No. 2 issued a notice on 24.11.2008 demanding payment of contributions totaling Rs. 7,38,238/- from the petitioner’s institution for the period 01.04.1996 to 31.10.2008. The petitioners filed reply to the said recovery notice with a request to drop the same which was rejected by order dated 18.12.2008, directing recovery. The petitioner contends that the notification dated 18.11.2005 is illegal and arbitrary, as the petitioner, being an educational institution run by a society, does not qualify as an “establishment” under Section 2(5) of the Act. The petitioner argues that education is neither a commercial activity nor a manufacturing process, but a holistic process of developing knowledge, skills, character, and values through formal schooling, which cannot be brought within the Act’s ambit. Therefore, the recovery notice and subsequent order are without lawful authority and liable to be quashed, warranting the interference through present petitions.

4. Since all the petitioners have filed separate petitions while raising a common grievance. Therefore, these petitions are being clubbed together, heard together, and decided together by this common order.

5. The reliefs prayed for by the petitioners in all the writ petitions are same and one with certain variations, however, in order to adjudicate these petitions, WPC No. 524 of 2009 ( Holly Cross Higher Secondary School vs. State of Chhattisgarh and Others ) has been taken as lead petition for deciding the issues involved in these cases.

6. The reliefs sought in the said petition are quoted hereinbelow:-

“10.1 That the Hon'ble High Court may kindly be pleased to call for the entire records leading to the notification issued on 27.10.2005 and the entire proceedings initiated by respondent no.2 by its notice dated 24.11.2008 and consequent order dated 18.12.2008, for its kind perusal.

10.2 That the Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to issue a writ of certiorari or any other appropriate writ order or direction etc., commanding the respondents 1 & 2 for quashing the notification dated 27.10.2005 (Annexure P-1) issued by respondent no.1 and the order dated 18.12.2008 (Annexure P-2) and passed by respondent no.2 demanding the petitioner to pay contribution Rs.08,39,536/- and declare them as void and inoperative in law. And further be pleased to quash the consequential orders (Annexure P-3)10.3 Any other relief or relief(s) which this Hon'ble Court may think proper in view of the facts and circumstances of the case may also kindly be granted."

7. The petitioner in WPC No. 524/2009, Holy Cross Higher Secondary School, Raipur, a duly recognized institution managed by the Raipur Crucelian Society, challenges the notification dated 27.10.2005 issued under sub-section (5) of Section 1 of the Employees’ State Insurance Act, 1948 (ESI Act), which extended the Act’s applicability to educational institutions effective from 01.04.2006. Following this, Respondent No. 2 issued a notice on 24.11.2008 demanding payment of Rs. 7,38,238/- as contributi