P.N. Ravindran, J.

1. The petitioner is a society registered under the Travancore-Cochin Literary, Scientific and Charitable Societies Act, 1955. It is running schools and creches in different parts of the State of Kerala. When the Employees State Insurance Corporation (hereinafter referred to as the Corporation for – short) initiated proceedings against the petitioner society under the provisions of the Employees’ State Insurance Act, 1948 (hereinafter referred to as the Act for short), the petitioner filed Ext.P3 application before the State Government, the appropriate authority under the Act seeking exemption from the provisions of the Act. Earlier, the petitioner had filed a representation before the Hon’ble Minister for Labour seeking the same relief, but, pursuant to Ext.P2 letter dated 20.5.2010 received from the Government an application in the prescribed form, evidenced by Ext.P3, was submitted. When that representation was kept pending, the petitioner filed W.P.(C).No.1164 of 2011 in this Court. By Ext.P13 judgment delivered on 13.1.2011 this Court disposed of the said writ petition with a direction to the State Government, joined as the second respondent in the writ petition, to pass appropriate orders on Ext.P3 application after ascertaining the views of the Corporation and after affording the petitioner and a representative of the Corporation an opportunity of being heard. The Government thereafter passed Ext.P14 order dated 10.6.2011 rejecting the application. Hence this writ petition challenging Ext.P14 and seeking the following reliefs:-

i) issue a writ of certiorari or any other appropriate writ, order or direction quashing Ext.P14.

ii) a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction commanding the first respondent to consider the petitioner’s request in Ext.P3 application afresh and pass orders thereon, after affording an opportunity of being heard.

iii) a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction commanding the second respondent to desist from proceeding against the petitioner under the provisions of the Act until a decision is taken by the appropriate government, the first respondent, on Ext.P3 application of the petitioner Society under Sections 87 and 88 of the Act. The main contention raised by the petitioner is that the Government, instead of rejecting the application on a technical ground, namely an incomplete entry in column 9 of the application, ought to have considered the petitioner’s application for exemption on the merits and taken a decision as to whether the order of exemption sought for should be granted. Various other contentions are also raised in the writ petition.

2. I heard Sri. Mohan Pulickkal, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, Sri. Hanil Kumar, learned Government Pleader appearing for the State of Kerala, Sri. P. Sankarankutty Nair, learned standing counsel appearing for the Corporation and Sri. P. Parameswaran Nair, learned Assistant Solicitor General of India appearing for the third respondent.

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 section 87 & 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 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 evidence that the Government was-mainly influenced by t