Madras High Court
The Proprietor vs The Government Of Tamil Nadu on 26 June, 2025
Author: R.Vijayakumar
Bench: R.Vijayakumar
W.P.(MD).No.207 of 2025
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
DATED : 26.06.2025
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE R.VIJAYAKUMAR
W.P(MD)No.207 of 2025
and
W.M.P(MD) No.181 of 2025
The Proprietor,
T.N.Kamaludeen Noor Said Beedi,
45, Chettikudi Street,
Melapalayam,
Tirunelveli – 627 005. ... Petitioner
Vs.
1. The Government of Tamil Nadu,
Represented by its
Secretary to Government,
Labour Welfare and Skill Development
(L1) Department,
Secretariat, Fort St.George,
Chennai – 600 009.
2. The Regional Director,
Employees' State Insurance Corporation,
No.143, Sterling Road,
Nungambakkam, Chennai – 600 034.
3. The Assistant Director,
Employees State Insurance Corporation,
Sub-Regional Office,
Salai Street, Vannarapettai,
Tirunelveli – 627 003.
1/10
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 04/07/2025 06:21:18 pm )
W.P.(MD).No.207 of 2025
4. Tirunelveli District Beedi Workers,
Federation Union,
Represented by its Secretary,
No.6/83, Nehruji Road,
Melapalayam,
Tirunelveli – 627 005. ... Respondents
PRAYER: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India,
praying this Court to issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, calling for the
records relating to the impugned G.O.(D) No.741, dated 30.09.2024 issued by
the first respondent and quash the same as illegal and consequently direct the
first respondent to grant exemption from the provisions of ESI Act to the
petitioner for the period 23.09.2024 to 22.09.2025.
For Petitioner : Mr.M.Jerin Mathew
For R1 : Mrs.D.Farjana Ghoushia
Special Government Pleader
For R2 & R3 : Mr.R.Ravikumar
For R4 : No appearance
ORDER
The present Writ Petition has been filed by the Beedi Company
challenging the order passed by the first respondent herein on 30.09.2024
rejecting the request of the petitioner/Company to grant exemption from the
provisions of the Employees' State Insurance Act, 1948 for the period
between 23.09.2024 and 22.09.2025.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 04/07/2025 06:21:18 pm )
2. Section 87 of the Employees' State Insurance Act, 1948 provides for
granting exemption to factories or establishment from the purview of the ESI
Act, subject to certain conditions as may be specified in the notification. As
per the first proviso such exemptions may be granted only if the employees in
such factories or establishments are otherwise in receipt of benefits
substantially similar or superior to the benefits provided under this Act. The
exemption application for renewal has to be made three months before the
date of expiry of the exemption period and a decision on the same shall be
taken by the appropriate Government within two months of receipt of such
application.
3. It is not in dispute that the petitioner/Management was enjoying
exemption benefits from the year 2007 onwards, on year to year basis based
upon the order passed by the authority under the Act. The petitioner
Management has made an application on 07.06.2024 seeking exemption for
the period between 23.09.2024 and 22.09.2025. This application came to be
rejected under the impugned order dated 30.09.2024. This order is put to
challenge in the present Writ Petition.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 04/07/2025 06:21:18 pm )
4. According to the learned counsel appearing for the writ petitioner,
the petitioner/Management provides similar as well as the better benefits to
the employees of the Beedi Company. Therefore, they were granted
exemption from the purview of the Act for various years. In fact, the
exemption was granted in the next year, covering the period between
23.09.2025 and 22.09.2026. In such circumstances, the authorities should not
have rejected the request for exemption for the period between 23.09.2024
and 22.09.2025.
5. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner had relied upon the
decision of a learned Single Judge of the this Court in W.P.Nos.17572 of
2010, 5186, 5187 and 10143 of 2011, dated 21.06.2011 wherein, the learned
Single Judge has held that if the exemption is granted for a particular year, the
same cannot be rejected for a different year without assigning any specific
reasons and there cannot be any discrimination between the employees.
6. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner has also relied upon
the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court reported in (2006) 3LW 771
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 04/07/2025 06:21:18 pm )
(Employees State Insurance Corporation and others Vs.Jardine Henderson
Staff Association and others), wherein in paragraph Nos.34 and 35 of the
Judgment, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that tremendous hardship will
be caused if arrears are sought to be paid and nobody stands to gain, neither
the employer nor the employee. Therefore, directing the Management to pay
E.S.I contribution at a belated point of time would cause prejudice. The
learned counsel appearing for the petitioner has also relied upon the judgment
of Jharkhand High Court reported in (2008) 117 FLR 781 (Tata-Yodogawa
Limited and Tayo Workers union and another Vs.State of Bihar and others)
in support of the contentions.
7. Per contra, the learned counsel appearing for the respondent ESI
Corporation relied upon the judgment of Hon'ble Division Bench of this
Court in W.A.(MD) No.204 of 2019, dated 29.09.2023, wherein the Hon'ble
Division Bench was pleased to hold that the exemption can be claimed based
upon the records submitted by the Management from year to year basis and
they cannot seek exemption as a matter of right, unless, the Management has
pointed out that they were providing similar or better benefits to the
employees, the right of exemption cannot be granted automatically.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 04/07/2025 06:21:18 pm )
8. Heard the learned counsel appearing on either side and perused the
materials available on record.
9. A perusal of the application filed on the side of the petitioner/
Management reveals that they have enclosed the Application Form, Proforma,
No Objection letter from the employees and Comparative statement to show
that similar or better benefits are conferred to their employees. Paragraph No.
2 (h) of G.O.(D) No.269 Labour Welfare and Skill Development (L1)
Department dated 03.06.2022 is extracted as follows:
“(h) The Beedi workers' Welfare Act is
applicable only to the Beedi workers operating
from Home (also known as Home workers). It is
pertinent to note that the office employees and
the Godown employees and other auxiliary
workers of the Beedi Companies are denied
benefits under the Beedi Workers Welfare Act. If
Exemption is granted, this category of workers
will be denied benefits under both the Beedi
Workers Welfare Act as well as Employees State
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 04/07/2025 06:21:18 pm )
Insurance Act. Hence, Government may consider
this aspect while processing this case.”
10. The above said recommendation made and the remarks offered by
the Deputy Director (Inspn), ESI Corporation reveals that the Beedi workers
from the office and Godown are not covered under the Beedi Workers Welfare
Act. In case, if the exemption is granted, they would be denied benefits. A
perusal of Section 87 of the E.S.I Act, further reveals that the Management
has to establish that they are providing similar or better benefits to the
employees. It differs from year to year. Therefore, ever year they have to
establish that they are providing similar or better benefits to the employees. In
such circumstances, relying upon the benefits granted in a particular previous
year, exemption cannot be automatically sought for in the next year.
11. In such circumstances, this Court is of the considered opinion that
the judgments relied upon by the learned counsel for the petitioner are not
applicable to the facts of the present case. On the other hand, the Hon'ble
Division Bench of this Court in W.A(MD) No.204 of 2019, dated 29.09.2023
after having considered the similar submissions raised by the learned counsel
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 04/07/2025 06:21:18 pm )
appearing for the petitioner therein, has arrived at a finding that the rejection
of application for exemption of particular year is valid in the eye of law.
12. In view of the above said deliberations, there are no merits in the
Writ Petition. Accordingly, this Writ Petition stands dismissed. There shall be
no order as to costs. Consequently connected Miscellaneous Petition stands
closed.
26.06.2025
Index : Yes / No
Internet : Yes / No
ebsi
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 04/07/2025 06:21:18 pm )
To
1. The Secretary to Government,
Labour Welfare and Skill Development
(L1) Department,
Secretariat, Fort St.George,
Chennai – 600 009.
2. The Regional Director,
Employees' State Insurance Corporation,
No.143, Sterling Road,
Nungambakkam,
Chennai – 600 034.
3. The Assistant Director,
Employees State Insurance Corporation,
Sub Regional Office,
Salai Street, Vannarapettai,
Tirunelveli – 627 003.
4. The Secretary,
Tirunelveli District Beedi Workers,
Federation Union,
No.6/83, Nehruji Road,
Melapalayam,
Tirunelveli – 627 005.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 04/07/2025 06:21:18 pm )
R.VIJAYAKUMAR,J.
ebsi
26.06.2025
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 04/07/2025 06:21:18 pm )
