(i) Whether 'Congregations' under the Christian community running unaided Schools/Colleges, can be treated as 'other organisations' within the meaning of the impugned notification?

(ii) Whether a 'Congregation' running a School/College can be considered as a 'Corporate Educational Agency' within the meaning of Rule (1) of Chapter III of the Kerala Educational Rules.

(iii) Can the teachers of Schools/Colleges being run by such Congregations be 'employees' within the meaning of Section 2(9) of the ESI Act?

(iv) Whether nuns, who are employed in such Schools/Colleges being run by the Congregations can be treated as 'employees' within the meaning of Section 2(9) of the ESI Act?

(v) Whether the impugned notification is violative of the fundamental right on the linguistic or religious minorities guaranteed in Article 30(1) of the Constitution of India?

(vi) Can it be said that the impugned notification is one protecting the right to life enshrined in Article 21 of the Constitution of India?

These are the common questions of law arise in all these appeals.

2. These are appeals of similar nature filed by various Congregations running unaided Schools following the State Syllabi, and Colleges, which can be categorised as educational institutions being run by religious minorities in the State of Kerala, challenging notification G.O. (P) No.135/2007/LBR dated 08.10.2007 issued by the Government of Kerala ('the impugned notification', for short), extending the provisions of the Employees' State Insurance Act, 1948 ('the ESI Act', for short) to educational institutions run by individuals, trustees, societies or other organisations, wherein 20 or more persons are employed or were employed on any day of the preceding twelve months.

Challenging C11 and C18 notices issued by the Employees State Insurance Corporation ('the ESI Corporation', for short), the said various schools have approached the Employees' Insurance Court through the insurance cases.

Their cases stand dismissed through the impugned judgments.

3. Heard the learned Senior Counsel Sri.N.N.Sugunapalan and the learned counsel Sri.K.K.Premlal for the appellants and the learned Standing Counsel Sri.Sandesh Raja and Smt.T.D.Rajalakshmi for the ESI Corporation.

4. Over and above the arguments that, the institutions in question are minority institutions being run with the right guaranteed under Article 30(1) of the Constitution of India and, that the impugned notification is an abridgment within the meaning of Article 13(2) of the Constitution of India on the fundamental right guaranteed under Article 30(1) on the minorities, that the teachers of educational institutions are not employees within the meaning of Section 2(9) of the ESI Act, the learned Senior Counsel and the learned counsel for the appellants have, in these appeals, raised an argument that schools involved in this batch of appeals are schools being run by Congregations under the Christian community, and therefore, such Congregations cannot be treated as individuals, trustees, societies or other organisations within the meaning of the impugned notification and hence, the impugned notification cannot be extended to these establishments in question.

5. Questions (i) and (ii)

The learned counsel for the appellants has argued that a 'Congregation' can, at the most be considered as a 'spiritual family' and therefore, the court below has gone wrong in finding that the Congregation is an Organisation within the meaning of the impugned notification. They have forwarded an argument that a Congregation is altogether a separate class, unique in character, which does not constitute an Organisation. Further, when it is considered as a spiritual family, the impugned notification cannot be extended to such Schools/Colleges being run by Congregations.

6. The learned Senior Counsel and the learned counsel for the appellants have argued that a Congregation is not a registered body and it forms a group of individuals who have only