RAMCHAND ONKARLAL AGARWAL Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD learned Advocates for the parties.

(2.) PETITIONER herein is the proprietor running the business of manufacture and sale of Bidis, having the business location at Kamptee in Nagpur district. Petitioner claims that he employs only ten Bidi-roller home workers, and has two workmen employed to do miscellaneous jobs titled as Tendurwala-cum-Clerk and Relaiwala, who work in the business premises. The petition has been aimed to challenge application of provisions of Employees' State Insurance Act to the petitioner's factory, in particular, and generally to challenge the amended section 2 (12), i. e. , definition of "factory" and consequential notifications. The prayers read as follows :

(3.) SEQUENCE of events shows that soon after application of Employees' state Insurance Act to Kamptee area, the petitioner has submitted an application under section 87 of the Employees' State Insurance Act to the State Government and claimed exemption. Annexure-E to the petition is the copy of forwarding letter and accompaniment thereto is the application in the prescribed form. The substance of the foundation of prayer for exemption contained in the application reads as follows :