The court upheld the rejection of exemption requests under the ESI Act, emphasizing the necessity of including affected workers in welfare legislation proceedings.

JUDGMENT :

A.D. Maria Clete, J.

Heard.

2. The writ petition has been filed by a Beedi manufacturing unit challenging the order of the State Government issued in G.O.(D) No. 284, Labour and Employment Department, dated 03.06.2020, whereby the Government rejected the petitioner’s request for exemption from the provisions of the Employees’ State Insurance Act, 1948 , under Sections 87 , 88, and 91-A for the periods from 10.01.2019 to 09.01.2020 and from 10.01.2020 to 09.01.2021. It may be noted that the impugned order erroneously refers to the first period as ending on 09.01.2012, which is a typographical error.

3. When the writ petition was listed on 25.06.2020, the learned Additional Government Pleader took notice on behalf of the State Government, and notice was ordered to the Employees’ State Insurance Corporation. Thereafter, the first respondent filed a counter affidavit, dated Nil of 2021. The Employees’ State Insurance Corporation is represented by its panel counsel.

4. The principal contention of the petitioner is that the first respondent has, as a matter of consistent administrative practice, been granting periodical exemptions to Beedi manufacturers from the operation of the ESI Act, and that such exemptions were routinely extended from time to time. In support of this claim, the petitioner refers to a series of Government Orders granting exemptions covering the period from 01.01.2000 to 09.01.2019. It is submitted that the impugned G.O. represents a mechanical and non-application of mind in rejecting the petitioner’s request.

5. The petitioner further relies on the orders passed by this Court dated 07.01.2020 in W.P. Nos. 18314 and 18316 of 2019, wherein, in view of the exemption having been granted during the pendency of those writ petitions, the same were dismissed as infructuous. The petitioner also refers to an earlier instance when it was compelled to approach this Court in W.P. No. 5123 of 2017. That writ petition was disposed of by order dated 27.04.2017, directing the Government to consider the petitioner’s representation. Pursuant to that direction, the Government granted exemption by issuing G.O.(D) No.365, Labour and Employment Department, dated 01.06.2018.

6. It was further contended that the workers engaged in the beedi industry, along with their trade unions, have accepted the welfare schemes and measures specifically tailored for the industry, which is governed by the provisions of the Beedi and Cigar Workers (Conditions of Employment) Act, 1966.

7. In this regard, specific reference is made to Ground No. (ix) of the writ petition, which reads as follows:

“The Beedi and Cigar Workers (Conditions of Employment) Act, 1966, The Beedi Workers Welfare Fund Act, 1976 and The Beedi Workers Welfare Cess Act, 1976 address the specific requirements of the beedi workers / rollers as the said legislations have been enacted keeping in mind their requirements and how the beedi industry functions whereas the ESI Act is a general welfare mechanism and is not suitable to address the requirements and protect the interest and welfare of the beedi workers / rollers. It is also relevant to state here that the present welfare and benefit schemes have been drawn up only after long discussions and deliberations with the labour unions and the workers are also agreeable to the welfare schemes that have been put in place by st the establishment at present. The 1 Respondent ought to have seen the fact that the ‘Beedi Employees’ will be governed under the Beedi and Cigar Workers (Conditions of Employment) Act and their best interests will be protected therein for which ‘cess’ is levied for the ‘Beedi Employees’ under the said Act. While so, warranting the ‘Beedi Employer’ to pay ESI contribution is nothing but Double Taxation and for the said reason this Impugned Order is liable to be set aside.”

8. In response to the petitioner’s claims and opposing the relief sought, the first respondent, in paragraphs 9 and 10 of the counter affidavit, h