EMPLOYEES STATE INSURANCE COPORATION Vs. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The Petitioner/Corporation a State within the meaning of Article 12 of the Constitution of India, has filed the present writ petition thereby challenge is made to Notification dated 23 October 2007 by filing the present Petition on 21.01.2014, and after the order passed by the ESI Court, Pune on Application (ESI) No. 17 of 2006 filed by Respondent No.2. After hearing the parties including the Petitioner and considering the issues so raised about the applicability of the provisions of the Employees State Insurance Act, 1948 (for short, ESI Act) and the subsistence of Notification, the ESI Court held as under :

(2.) Admittedly, this order remained in tact as there is no averment of the challenge to the same though statutory remedy was available. However, in this Petition a prayer is made for a stay of the said order dated 11.01.2013.

(3.) The learned counsel appearing for the Petitioner submitted that this is a case where such exemption retrospectively ought not to have been granted in view of objection dated 22.05.2007. Respondent No.1the State Government, after considering the provisions, including the objections so raised, has decided to grant exemption and issued Notification on 23.10.2007. The challenge to the power of State to grant exemption, in our view, at the instance of the Petitioner, in view of the present facts and circumstances, at this late stage, is difficult to accept. It is settled that in every matter delay should not be the reason to dismiss the writ petition on the said ground. However, it is also settled that the High Court need to consider facts and circumstances and conduct of the parties before entertaining the delayed writ petition so filed. The law in this regard is settled in State of Jammu and Kashmir v. R.K. Zalpuri AIR 2016 SC 3006, whereby the Supreme Court reiterated that the Court should take note of the factual background and must keep in mind the aspect of delay while entertaining the writ petition. The Supreme Court in paras 26, 27 and 28 has observed as under: