BALAJI NURSERY & PRIMARY SCHOOL REP BY ITS CORRESPONDENT Vs. STATE OF TAMIL NADU, REP BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, LABOUR AND EMPLOYMENT DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT, FORT ST GEORGE, CHENNAI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This writ appeal has been filed against the order passed by a learned single Judge of this Court in W.P.No.25752 of 2017 dated 09.10.2017, wherein the prayer made by the appellant herein to quash the Government Order passed in G.O.Ms.No.237, Labour and Employment (K1) Department, dated 26.11.2010 by the first respondent, directing the appellant to make the contributions in respect of their employees under the Employees State Insurance Act, 1948, was rejected, placing reliance upon a judgment of this Court in W.A.No.608 of 2017 dated 06.07.2017 (ESI Regional Corporation (Tamil Nadu) represented by its Regional Director, Chennai and two others v. Avila Convent Matriculation Higher Secondary School, Coimbatore and another).

(2.) The appellant approached this Court by filing W.P.No.25752 of 2017, challenging the Government Order passed in G.O.Ms.No.237, Labour and Employment (K1) Department, dated 26.11.2010 by the first respondent, directing the appellant to make the contributions in respect of their employees under the Employees State Insurance Act, 1948 ('ESI Act' in short). It is the case of the appellant that since the appellant is a minority educational institution run by the trustees, it is not amenable to the Employees State Insurance Act. The learned single Judge, relying upon a Division Bench judgment of this Court in W.A.No.608 of 2017 dated 06.07.2017 dismissed the writ petition on 09.10.2017 with a direction to pay the arrears of ESI contributions as on 30.09.2017 in 12 equal monthly instalments with a further direction to pay the ESI contributions on regular basis without fail, from the month of October 2017. The said order has been passed along with two other writ petitions with similar prayer. Challenging the said order passed in respect of W.P.No.25752 of 2017, the appellant has come up with this appeal.

(3.) The learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that the learned single Judge has failed to note Section 1(5) of the ESI Act, 1948, which does not cover educational institutions. The term 'establishment' which finds a place in Section 1(5) is not defined in the Act. Further, referring to Section 2(24) of the ESI Act, and contending that the impugned notification is contrary to the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in T.M.A.Pai, (2002) 8 SCC 481, the learned counsel for the appellant prayed for allowing this writ petition.