TATA MOTORS LTD. Vs. STATE OF JHARKHAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner, In this writ petition, has prayed for quashing the order passed by the Principal Secretary to the Government, Labour, Employment and Training Department, Government of Jharkhand, communicated by Memo no. 1181 dated 3'd December, 2009, whereby final order has been passed on the application of the petitioner, refusing to grant exemption from operation of Employees State Insurance Act, 1948. The said order has been assailed on number of grounds. However, when this writ petition is taken up for hearing, Mr. V. P. Singh, learned senior counsel, appearing on behalf of the petitioner, submitted that the impugned order has been passed without giving the petitioner opportunity of being heard and the some is null and void. Learned counsel submitted that from the impugned order it would be evident that the matter was heard by the Special Secretary to the Government, Labour, Employment & Training Department, but the final order has been passed by the Principal Secretary to the Government, Labour, Employment & Training Department. The officer who heard the parties did not pass the order, rather the order has been passed by some other officer who did not hear the parties. There is, thus, blatant violation of the principle of natural justice and the order being a nullity is liable to be quashed.

(2.) Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the concerned workman next contended that the facilities, which are extended to the workman by the Manager, are better than the facilities provided under the Employees State Insurance Act and that the refusal of exemption of the Management is arbitrary and unjustified.

(3.) Replying to the said submissions of the petitioner, learned counsel appearing on behalf of Respondent Nos. 2 to 4 contended that only for the reason that the officer who has passed the order did not hear the parties does not render the order a nullity. There are circumstances under which the orders may be passed by the authority, who did not hear the parties. If no prejudice is caused to any party, the said order cannot be said to be illegal.