BOKARO CONTRACTORS ASSOCIATION THROUGH ITS PRESIDENT SAMSUL HUDA KHAN Vs. STEEL AUTHORITY OF INDIA LIMITED AND ORS.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) MR . Mehta, learned Counsel, appearing for the petitioner, submitted that in view of Notification No. S.O. 611 dated 31.1.1986 (Annexure -1) and the Notification No. S.O. 2030 dated 25.10.2004 (Annexure -A to the counter affidavit filed on behalf of respondent No. 5 on 11.10.2006), the members of petitioner association are exempted from the Employees State Insurance Act (the Act for short), as they are contractors working in the Bokaro Steel Plant. He further submitted that the Steel Authority of India Limited has also challenged one of the said Notification dated 25.10.2004 and the letter dated 9.11.2004 issued pursuant to it vide writ petition being W.P.(C) No. 3012 of 2006 which is pending in this Court with interim order of stay.

(2.) MR . Rajan Raj, learned Counsel, appearing for Employees State Insurance Corporation (respondent No. 5), submitted that the association cannot pursue this writ petition as its members must be having separate establishments at different places. He further submitted that the case of Steel Authority of India Limited stands on different footing than the case of the members of the petitioner. He lastly submitted that at best the members of petitioner can apply for exemption under Section 87 of the Act before the appropriate Government but cannot challenge the impugned notifications.