AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Arindam Sinha, J
Mr. Mishra, learned advocate appears on behalf of petitioner and submits, sub-section (4) in section 1 in Employees State Insurance Act, 1948 has proviso saying that the sub-section 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.
Mr. Ray, learned advocate appears on behalf of the Revenue and draws attention to paragraph 3 in impugned order dated 27th June, 2017. The paragraph is extracted and reproduced below.
“However, employer did not submit any documentary evidence to substantiate their contention. The State Government, Labour and ESI Department vide their letter No.SS-II/SC/14/2015/763/L&ESI, Bhubaneswar dated 2.2.2016 also communicated to the Secretary, Odisha State Housing Board, Bhubaneswar that proposal for exemption, prayed by the employer is also rejected on the ground that there is no merit for consideration.”
Mr. Mishra replies that exemption under section 87 is distinguishable from the provision under the proviso in section 1(4).
First proviso in section 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 section 1(4) and 87. He submits, the Act is not applicable to his client and prays for adjournment.
Adjournment granted is peremptory.
Petitioner will be heard on its contention that the Act is not applicable to it.
List on 17th November, 2022. Interim order to continue till next date.
.....................................................