The Act's implementation cannot be postponed due to the non-availability of a full-fledged hospital, and the rejection of representation seeking a full-fledged hospital did not violate the principles of natural justice.

JUDGMENT

(Prayer: Civil Miscellaneous Appeal filed under Section 82(2) of E.S.I.Act, 1948, to set aside the decree and judgement passed in E.S.I.O.P.No.8 of 2008 dated 22.08.2011 by E.S.I.Court (Labour Court, Madurai).)

1. The above appeal has been filed by E.S.I.Corporation challenging the order of remand passed by the E.S.I.Court.

2. Factual Matrix:

(i). The respondent mill is functioning at Vadamadurai Village, Vedasandur Taluk, Dindigul District. The Ministry of Labour, Government of Tamil Nadu had issued a notification under Section 1(3) read with Section 1(5) of E.S.I.Act and extended the said Act to various revenue villages including Vadamadurai. The said notification was issued on 20.06.2001 extending the applicability of the Act to the above said area with effect from 01.08.2001. This notification issued by the Government of India was not challenged by any one of the interested parties.

(ii). On 19.07.2001, the Sub Regional Office at Madurai had issued a communication to the respondent mill informing the applicability of the Act to their mill with effect from 01.08.2001. The corporation has also requested to comply with the initial registration work so that the employees and their families can avail the benefit. On 12.09.2001 another letter was addressed by the Sub Regional Office, Madurai requesting the respondent mill to furnish the information in the proforma enclosed on the ground that the corporation has reasons to believe that their establishment is amenable to the provisions of the E.S.I.Act. In the said communication, the Corporation has pointed out that if no reply is received within 15 days, the establishment will be deemed to have been covered with effect from 01.08.2001 and the arrears of contribution will be recovered. On 27.09.2001, another communication was addressed by the insurance inspector to the mill informing them that he would be visiting the factory for inspection on 16.10.2001. On 13.12.2001, an order was passed by the E.S.I.Corporation covering the establishment with effect from 01.08.2001 based upon the report of the insurance inspector dated 16.10.1992.

(iii). The respondent mill had filed W.P(MD).No.23457 of 2002 to quash the notification of Government of India dated 20.06.2001 and the consequential order of the Sub Regional Office dated 19.07.2001 and the final coverage order dated 13.12.2001 and sought to restrain the E.S.I.Corporation from implementing the provisions of the E.S.I.Act. The said writ petition was dismissed on 17.09.2009 with a finding that the Central Government was well within the power to issue impugned notification and the Sub Regional Office has rightly issued the consequential proceedings dated 19.07.2001 and 13.12.2001. The order passed in the writ petition was not challenged by the respondent mill and it has become final. (iv)One of the employees of the respondent mill had filed W.P(MD).No.4504 of 2007 for a mandamus directing the E.S.I.Corporation to perform their duty by running a full time hospital at Vadamadurai, Vedasandur Taluk, Dindigul District for 24 hours.

(v). In the said writ petition, the E.S.I.Corporation had filed a counter contending that in Tamil Nadu, all the E.S.I.Hospital are being run by the Government of Tamil Nadu as provided under Section 58 of the E.S.I.Act. Depending upon the requirement, a full-fledged hospital could be established. However, the employer or the employee cannot demand the corporation to maintain a full-fledged hospital as a pre-condition to pay contribution.

(vi). In the said writ petition, the employer namely the mill had filed a counter contending that an E.S.I.hospital is already functioning from 7.00 a.m to 10.30 a.m and 4.00 p.m to 6.30 p.m in week days and in Sunday and other holidays, it is functioning from 7.00 a.m to 10.30 a.m. Based upon the counter filed by the E.S.I.Corporation and the employer, the writ Court found that the employees has not made out