MANAGEMENT OF INDEPENDENT Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In all these petitions, the challenge is raised to the State Government's notification, dated 16.3.2011 issued under Section 1(5) of the Employees' State Insurance Act, 1948 ('ESI Act' for short) extending the operation of the ESI Act to the educational institutions in Karnataka. Sri K.V.Dhananjay, the Learned Counsel for the petitioners in W.P.No. 28326-28328/2011 submits that the State Government has not consulted the Employees State Insurance Corporation ('ESI Corporation' for short) and has not taken the prior approval of the Central Government before issuing the impugned notification. He submits that the Government of Karnataka has merely acted in concert with other States like Jharkhand, Bihar, Rajasthan, Punjab, West Bengal and Andhra Pradesh.

(2.) The Learned Counsel submits that there is an acute shortage of the infrastructure to cater to the needs of the existing insurees under the ESI Act. In the city of Bangalore, there are only two ESI hospitals - one in Indiranagar and the other in Rajajinagar. The ESI Corporation's infrastructure is so very inadequate that it is in no position to take care of the future insurees under the ESI Act. More efficacious alternatives are put in place by the petitioner-institutions. The medicare facilities introduced by some of the educational institutions are better and higher than those being given to the insurees under the ESI Act.

(3.) He pressed into service the doctrine of desuetude. He submits that if the preliminary or intention notification is not acted upon for 6 - 7 years, then it is to be treated as a spent notification. It stands repealed expressly or impliedly.