TAMIL NADU ASBESTOS Vs. THE REGIONAL DIRECTOR (TAMIL NADU) EMPLOYEES STATE INSURANCE CORPORATION NO. 142 & ANR.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The appellant - Tamil Nadu Asbestos (Pipes) Cement Corporation Limited has filed WP No. 5007 of 2002 before this Court challenging the order dated 21.12.1995 passed by the second respondent-ESI Corporation. In and by the order dated 21.12.1995, the second respondent called upon the appellant to take necessary steps for completion of initial registration work to avail the benefits of medical assistance to the employees working in their factory through the ESI dispensary in case the workers or their family members suffers from any ailment. By order dated 13.07.2010, the learned single Judge dismissed WP No. 5007 of 2002, against which the present writ appeal is filed.

(2.) The necessary facts are that the Central Government issued a notification under Section 1(3) of the Employees State Insurance Corporation Act (in short 'The Act') whereby Mayanur Village, where the factory of the appellant is situate, was ordered to be brought under the purview of the Act with effect from 01.01.1996. In this context, the second respondent has issued a communication dated 21.11995, calling upon the appellant to register themselves with the Corporation so as to ensure that the benefits of the medical assistance under the Act are extended to the employees employed in their factory at Mayanur and also to the family members of the employees. Challenging the communication dated 21.11995 of the second respondent, the writ petition was filed before this Court in WP No. 5007 of 200

(3.) Before the Writ Court, the appellant has challenged the order dated 21.12.1995 of the second respondent mainly on two grounds and they are (i) as per the guidelines issued by the ESI Corporation in the communication dated 04.05.2001, there should be a minimum insurable population of 1000 in the Village which was brought within the purview of the Act, but in Mayanur Village, there was no such insurable population besides there is no statistical data available to show the insurable population and (ii) there should be an ESI dispensary within a radius of 8 kilometers, whereas, there is an ESI dispensary functioning at Puliyur Village, which is 10 kilometers away from Mayanur Village and thereby the object and purpose of the Act is defeated. The writ petition was dismissed by this Court by holding that the appellant has not challenged the notification issued by the Central Government but only challenged the consequential order dated 21.12.1995 issued by the Second respondent. As regards the insurable population required to be shown in a Village, the learned single Judge held that it is only a guideline and it is not mandatory to be followed. It was further concluded that merely because a dispensary is situate in 10 kilometre radius, it will not cause any prejudice for the employees of the appellant Corporation especially when it is not disputed that there are bus facilities available from Mayanur to Puliyur Village where the dispensary is functioning.