P.R. Ramachandra Menon, J.

1. Dismissal of the Insurance cases filed by the appellants/educational institutions before the Employees Insurance Court under Section 75 r/w Sec. 77 of the Employees Insurance Act (for short 'Act') for a declaration that their Institutions are not liable to be covered under the Act; that no contribution is liable to be paid by them under any circumstance; that 'Teachers' are not liable to be considered as employees as defined under Section 2(9) of the Act and thus seeking to set aside the notice/proceedings issued by the authorities of the ESI Corporation, is the subject matter of challenge in all these cases preferred under Section 82 of the Act. In some of the cases, violation of Article 30(1) of the Constitution of India, for intruding into the minority status/rights is also projected as a ground for interference.

2. One of the main contentions raised in these appeals is as to the incompetency on the part of the authorities concerned to proceed with further steps, in so far as coverage sought to be made is pursuant to a notification issued in terms of Section 1(5) of the Act by the 'State Government', who is stated as not the 'Appropriate Government' in terms of Section 2(1) of the Act. According to the appellant institutions, they are affiliated to the 'CBSE', which is an organ of the Central Government. In the said circumstance, they are under the control of the Central Government and as such, the notification, if at all to be issued, should have been issued by the 'Central Government'. Since no such notification has been issued by the Central Government and the notification dated 08.l0.2007 (corrected by the subsequent notification dated 05.05.2008) has been issued by the 'State Government', (who is stated as incompetent to have issued the notification), the proceedings initiated and pursued by the authorities of the Insurance Corporation are per se wrong and unsustainable in all respects.

3. Another major ground of attack is that 'Teachers' engaged by the appellants hold a pivotal position, vested with the duty of imparting teaching, who mould the career, conduct and overall development of students, ensuring proper upbringing as responsible citizens of tomorrow. This is a 'mission', which is akin to a profession and under no circumstance could a Teacher be equated as a 'worker' or an 'employee' of an establishment. As a natural consequence, there cannot be any coverage under the Act in so far as Teachers are concerned and hence the proceedings require to be interfered.

4. In some of the appeals, preferred by the so called minority institutions, as mentioned already, an additional contention has been raised to the effect that, such appellants are having a vested right 'to establish and administer educational institutions of their choice'; being entitled for protection as a minority community, as envisaged under Article 30(1) of the Constitution of India and- that the said right being an absolute right, [which is not subject to reasonable restrictions unlike fundamental rights under Article 19 of the Constitution of India] stands on a different footing. The notification issued by the State Government and the proceedings initiated and being pursued by the authorities of the Corporation have transgressed into the right under Article 30(1) of the Constitution of India, which hence is sought to be intercepted.

5. The matters were heard quite extensively on different dates and they were finally heard on 21.11.2015. The arguments were led on behalf of the appellants by Mr. N.N. Sugunapalan, the learned Sr. Counsel, effectively supported by Mr.K.K.Premlal. Version on the part of the respondent/Corporation was putforth by Mr. Sandesh Raja and Mr. Ajaya Kumar.

6. With regard to the first question, the learned Counsel for the appellants submits that the no sort of financial assistance by way of 'grant in aid' or otherwise is being obtained by the appellants from the State Government and that the provi