The term "establishment" under Section 1(5) of the ESI Act is not limited to industrial, commercial, or agricultural establishments, but can also include other types of establishments, including educational institutions.

1. Heard the arguments of learned counsels in W.P.Nos.2872, 2873, 4570, 5084 and 5257 of 2011 on 10.3.2011 and in W.P.No.4722 of 2011 on 11.3.2011.2.The short question that arises for consideration in these writ petitions is whether the attempt by the State Government in covering the educational institutions employing 20 or more persons under the provisions of the Employees' State Insurance Act, 1948 (for short ESI Act) is legally valid? If the coverage of such institutions are legally valid whether the exclusion of the educational institutions run by the Government and Government Aided institutions from the purview of the notification is discriminatory? and that the impugned notification covering the petitioners alone are liable to be struck down on ground of Article 14 of the Constitution of India.

2. The State Government by the exercise of its power under Section 1(5) of the ESI Act had issued a preliminary notification by G.O.No.58, Labour and Employment Department, dated 15.4.2005 notifying the educational institutions, excluding the Government and Government Aided institutions, run by various types of bodies and individuals employing more than 20 to be brought within the purview of Section 1(3) of the ESI Act. By the said notification, the Government had expressed its intention to extend the provisions of the ESI Act to these institutions any day on or after six months after publication of the notification in the Tamil Nadu Government Gazette. The said notification was published in Part II Section 2 of the Tamil Nadu Government Gazette, dated 11.5.2005. The said notification reads as follows:

Extension of Employees' State Insurance Scheme to certain New Sectors of Establishments in all the Implemented area under Employees' State Insurance Act.

[G.O.No.58, Labour and Employment (K1), 15th April, 2005.]

No.II(2)/LE/366/2005.-In exercise of the powers conferred by sub-section (5) of Section 1 of the Employees' State Insurance Act, 1948 (Central Act XXXIV of 1948), the Governor of Tamil Nadu in consultation with the Employees State Insurance Corporation and with the approval of the Central Government hereby gives notice of its intention to extend the provisions of the said Act to the class of establishments specified in column (1) of the Schedule below situated in the areas specified in the corresponding entries in column (2) thereof, on or after six months from the date of publication of this Notification in the Tamil Nadu Government Gazette.

THE SCHEDULE

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Description of class of establishments Areas in which the establishments are situated.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

(1) (2)

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Educational Institutions (excluding Areas where the Scheme Government and Government Aided has already been brought Institutions), run by individuals, trustees, into force under sub-societies or other organisations, wherein section (3) of Section 120 or more persons are employed or and sub-section (5) of were employed on any day of the Section 1 of the Act. preceding twelve months.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

3. The petitioners herein were not able to pinpoint any objection raised by any one of the petitioners with reference to the preliminary notification. Though vague allegations were made that some of them have sent their representations, neither copies of such representations were enclosed in the typed set nor any attempt to produce those copies during the hearing was made by the counsel for the petitioners. On the other hand, some of the counsel for petitioners have fairly admitted that no representations were sent by them as there was no wide publicity on the said notification. They had also taken this as a ground for impugning the final notification.