AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
M. Katju, J.—Heard Shri Somesh Khare for the petitioner and Shri P.K. Pandey for respondent No. 2.
It has been stated in paragraph 16 of the writ petition that the petitioner has applied for exemption under Section 88 of the E.S.I. Act. It appears that this exemption application has been sent to the Central Government, whereas it should have been sent to the State Government. It may be noted that under Section 88 of the E.S.I. Act, an exemption application has to be filed before the appropriate government and the expression "appropriate government" has been defined in Section 2(1) of the E.S.I. Act, as follows:
""Appropriate Government" means, in respect of establishments under the control of the Central Government or (a railway administration) or a major port or a mine or oilfield, a Central Government and in all other cases, the (State) Government."
Thepetitioners establishment is not under the Control of the Central Government nor is the Railway administration, port or a mine or oil field. Hence, the appropriate government, so far as the titioners establishment is concerned, is me State Government. Hence, the petitioner should have moved the said exemption application before the State Government and not the Central Government.
However, I direct that if the petitioner moves such an application before the State Government within two weeks'' from today, the impugned Circular dated 111997 shall remain stayed until the disposal of the said exemption application. The State Government will decide the said exemption application within a period of three months of production of a certified copy of this order in accordance with law after hearing the parties concerned.
With the above direction, the petition is disposed of finally. Order accordingly.
