ORISSA STATE HOUSING BOARD Vs. DEPUTY DIRECTOR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Mr. Mishra, learned advocate appears on behalf of petitioner and submits, sub-sec. (4) in sec. 1 in Employees State Insurance Act, 1948 has proviso saying that the sub-sec. does not apply to a factory or establishment under control of the Government, whose employees are otherwise in receipt of benefits substantially similar or superior to benefits provided under the Act. In paragraph 3 of the writ petition the statements have been made invoking the provision. Counter has not been filed.

(2.) Mr. Ray, learned advocate appears on behalf of the Revenue and draws attention to paragraph 3 in impugned order dtd. 27/6/2017. The paragraph is extracted and reproduced below.

(3.) First proviso in sec. 87 says, exemption may be granted only if the employees in such factories or establishments are otherwise in receipt of benefits substantially similar or superior to the benefits provided under the Act. Mr. Mishra contends distinction between the provisos in sec. 1(4) and 87. He submits, the Act is not applicable to his client and prays for adjournment.