Balakrishnan Nair, J.

The point that arises for decision in these cases is whether the notification dated 8.10.2007, issued by the Kerala Government under Section 1(5) of the Employees State Insurance Act, 1948, extending the provisions of the said Act to educational institutions, is valid or not. The petitioners in these cases represent the managements of schools affiliated to CBSE, ICSE and also unaided but recognised schools under the Kerala Education Rules. Some of the Self Financing Colleges are also before us.

2. W.P.(C) No.5986/2008 is treated as the main case, for the purpose of referring to the exhibits. The writ petitions, as mentioned earlier, are filed challenging the notification, G.O.(P) No.135/2007/LBR dated 8.10.2007, issued by the State Government under Section 1(5) of the Employees State Insurance Act, 1948 (for short, referred to as "ESI Act"). By the said notification, which is produced as Ext.P1, the provisions of ESI Act have been made applicable to educational institutions (including public, private, aided or partially aided) run by individuals, trustees, societies or other organisations, wherein twenty or more persons are employed or were employed on any day in the preceding 12 months and which are working in the areas where the scheme under the ESI Act has already been brought into force under sub-sections (3) and (5) of Section 1 of the Act. After the issuance of the above notification, the Government have issued G.O.(P) No.69/2008/LBR dated 5.5.2008, produced as Ext.R1(a) by the Government along with its counter affidavit, modifying Ext.P1 notification, by excluding public and aided schools from the purview of the said notification. The reason given is that, the staff of public and aided educational institutions enjoy service benefits applicable to Government Servants and, therefore, it was unnecessary to extend the provisions of the Act to such institutions.

3. The petitioners attack Ext.P1 notification, mainly, on the following ground: "By issuing Ext.P1, the Government have exceeded its powers conferred under Section 1(5) of the ESI Act. In other words, Ext.P1 is ultra vires and unauthorised by the said section , and therefore, ab initio void". This ground of attack is sought to be sustained relying on the following reasons:

(a) The educational institutions not being establishments similar to industrial, commercial or agricultural establishments, are not covered by the words 'or otherwise' used in Sec. 1 (5). The meaning of the words 'or otherwise' should be read down in the light of the principle of ejusdem generis and the notification can cover only establishments engaged in activities similar to industrial, commercial or agricultural activities.

(b) The schools affiliated to CBSE are under the control of the Central Government and therefore, the appropriate Government to issue the notification under Section 1(5) of the Act is the Central Government and not the State Government. For that reason also, Ext.P1 is ultra vires and therefore, unenforceable.

4. The first respondent State, which is the author of Ext.P1 notification, has filed a counter affidavit in WP(C) No.19149 of 2008. By filing memos, the said affidavit has been adopted in other cases also. In W.P.(C) No.5986 of 2008, the State has filed an additional statement. It fully supports Ext.P1. According to it, the Government have necessary competence to issue a notification in the nature of Ext.P1. The words 'or otherwise' employed are wide enough to cover all other establishments other than industrial, commercial or agricultural. Since the words "industrial, commercial or agricultural" belong to different categories, the meaning of the general words 'or otherwise' cannot be read down by applying the principle of ejusdem generis. Even assuming, it is to be so read down, according to the State, since educational institutions have been held to be industrial establishments by the Supreme Court in Bangalore Water Supply and Sewerag