ORDER :

Krishnan Ramasamy, J.

1. This Civil Revision Petition has been filed against the order dated 27.01.2016 made in I.A. No. 4 of 2015 in unnumbered ESIOP of 2015 on the file of the Employee's Insurance Court, Puducherry.

2. The Court below has passed the following order in the said IA:

"This is a petition filed under Section 75(2-B) of the ESI Act, 1948 read with Section 151 of C.P.C. praying an order for waiving or substantially reducing the amount to be deposited in terms of the provisions of the Section 75(2-B) of the ESI Act, for filing the original petition.

2. Today when the petition came by for hearing, in view if the endorsement made by petitioner's counsel, this IA is dismissed as not pressed. No costs"

3. The learned counsel for the petitioners submitted the 1st respondent appeared before the Court below and made an endorsement for withdrawing the said IA. The Court below also permitted to withdraw the same without hearing the Workers Union. He further submitted that since ESIOP was filed seeking prayer to hold that the labourers employed by the 1st respondent, in respect of whom the impugned order has been issued, are not coverable under the ESI Act 1948 and to set aside the order bearing No. TN/INS/VI/51-51-102876-001-0099/C19 dated 04.09.2014 for a sum of Rs. 8,26,821 for a period from 01.01.2011 to 31.03.2014, the petitioners herein ought to have heard before dismissing the said IA.

4. The learned counsel further submitted that the employees of the Workers Union are NWNP (No Work No Pay) employees and these workers are not a casual or a contract labour to qualify and avail benefits under the ESI Act. These workers are provided Provident Fund, Gratuity, Bonus and Pensional benefits and they are entitled for the weekly off etc. Therefore, they are not at all the casual labour and ESI Act will not be applicable for them. Hence, the withdrawal of the said I.A. No. 4 of 2015 is a direct bearing on the interest of the NWNP workers since the challenge was made against the impugned order dated 04.09.2014 issued by the ESI Corporation, whereby directing the Food Corporation of India to deposit a sum of Rs. 8,26,821 for a period from 01.01.2011 to 31.03.2014. When the stand of the revision petitioners herein is that the ESI Act itself does not applicable for these employees, then the question of deposit does not arise at all and therefore, the Workers Union ought to have been heard and without hearing them the Court below permitted the Food Corporation of India to withdraw the said IA, which is against the principles of natural justice, and law laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court.

5. The learned counsel further submitted that the Madurai Bench of this Court in C.M.A. (MD). No. 534 of 2017 dated 06.11.2017 held that NWNP workers are not casual or contract workers, they are regular workers with benefits such as Provident Fund, Gratuity, Bonus, Production linked incentives, Leave etc., The Hon'ble Supreme Court vide order dated 19.11.2019 in Civil Appeal No. 8841 to 8842 of 2019 upheld the judgment of this Court made in C.M.A. (MD). No. 534 of 2017 dated 06.11.2017.

6. Further, he referred the Paragraph No. 8 of the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of ESI Corporation vs. Bhakra Beas Management Board reported in 2009 10 SCC 671, which is extracted hereunder:

"8. In our opinion, wherever any petition is filed by an employer under Section 75 of the Act, the employer has not only to implead ESIC but has also to implead at least some of the workers concerned (in a representative capacity if there are a large number of workers) or the trade union representing the said workers. If that is not done, and a decision is given in favour of the employer, the same will be in violation of the rules of natural justice. After all, the real parties concerned in labour matters are the employer and the workers, ESI Corporation w