Allowed

Bombay Small Scale Industries Association v. the Employees State Insurance Corpn. and 3 Ors.

Bombay HC4 Oct 2010WP/1990/2000

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

A writ petitioner sought details on funds collected and spent under the ESI Scheme and the appointment of a committee to inquire into implementation failures. The Court noted the Government's decision to hand over the scheme and hospitals to the ESI Corporation, finding the grievance redressed by this development, and disposed of the petition.

What did the court decide?

The petition is disposed of on the basis that the handing over of the ESI hospitals and scheme to the ESI Corporation redressed the petitioners' grievances.

Bombay Small Scale Industries Association Vs the… — Service and Employment | Bombay HC (2010)

WP/1990/10

SSK/

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION

¶5

WRIT PETITION NO. 1990 OF 2000

¶6

Bombay Small Scale Industries Association Versus The Employees State Insurance Corporation & Ors.

¶7

.... Petitioners

¶8

....Respondents.

¶9

Mr. P. M. Havnur, Advocate for the petitioners. Mr. M. V. Jaykar, Advocate for respondent no.1. Mr. P. G. Lad, AGP for the State.

¶10

CORAM : SMT. RANJANA DESAI & R. V. MORE, JJ.

¶11

DATED : 4^th OCTOBER, 2010.

¶12

P.C.:

¶13

The petitioners are Bombay Small Scale Industries Association. The

¶14

basic grievance made in this petition is in respect of unhappy state of

¶15

affairs prevalent in the ESI Scheme Hospitals managed and run by the

¶16

State Government to which the 1^st respondent i.e. the Employees State

¶17

Insurance Corporation (ESI Corporation) supplies funds. The hospitals are situated at Kandivali, Andheri, Mulund, Worli, Parel and outside Bombay at Thane, Vashi, Ulhas Nagar, Nasik, Aurangabad, Sholapur, Pune and Nagpur. The petitioners have prayed that respondent nos. 1 & 2 i.e. the ESI Corporation and the Commissioner of ESI Scheme be directed to give details of the amounts collected under the Employees State Insurance Act,

WP/1990/10

SSK/

1948 (ESIA, 1948) from the State of Maharashtra since the inception of the ESI Scheme and the details of expenses incurred for implementing the ESI Scheme in the State of Maharashtra. The petitioners have also prayed for appointment of a Committee and/or a Commission of experts to enquire intera-alia into the issue as to how and why respondent nos. 1, 2 & 4 have failed to implement the ESIA, 1948.

¶22

It appears that a Committee was appointed by this Court and the Committee submitted its report. The Committee’s report is dated August, 2008. The report states that there are certain deficiencies in infrastructure. Mr. Lad, learned counsel for the State states that the deficiencies have been cured. However, this statement is disputed by learned counsel for the petitioners. We are informed that the 1^st respondent has taken a decision to take over the running of the above mentioned hospitals and the ESI Scheme. The 1^st respondent has submitted a draft of Memorandum of Understanding to the State. Mr. Lad, learned counsel for the State states that the State has taken a cabinet decision to hand over the ESI Scheme and the hospitals situated all over Maharashtra to the 1^st respondent and that proposal has been forwarded by the 1^st respondent to its Head-Office in Delhi and the 1^st respondent is awaiting sanction. Learned counsel for the 1^st respondent states that the 1^st respondent is likely to receive the sanction within two weeks.

¶23

WP/1990/10 3 SSK/

¶24

We must note that affidavit has been filed by Mrs. Charushila Chandrakant Tambekar, Deputy Secretary, Public Health Department, Government of Maharashtra. The said affidavit is dated 17^th September, 2010. In the said affidavit, Mrs. Tambekar has confirmed that cabinet decision has been taken to handover the ESI scheme and the ESI hospitals to the 1^st respondent.

¶25

Counsel for the petitioners states that in principle, the handing over of the ESI scheme and the ESI hospitals has been accepted by the State Government and also by the 1^st respondent and the modalities will be worked out within a period of four months. In view of this, in our opinion, for the present, the petitioners grievances are redressed. Hence, the petition can be disposed in the aforestated terms. Needless to say that if the need arises, the petitioner can always approach this Court. The

¶26

petition is disposed of.

¶27

In view of the disposal of the petition, the Notice of Motion No. 428 of 2006 does not survive and the same is also disposed of.

¶28

(R. V. MORE, J.)

¶29

(SMT. RANJANA DESAI, J.)

Bombay Small Scale Industries Association v. the Employees State Insurance Corpn. and 3 Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Bombay Small Scale Industries Association v. the Employees State Insurance Corpn. and 3 Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Kundlika Narsu Maske Vs the State of Maharahstra and Ors.

Sonkhar Industrial Salt Works Pvt. Ltd. Vs State of Maharashtra

Ichalkaranji Municipal Council Vs Shilajadevi @ Vahinisaheb Trimbak Rao Pratinidhi and Othrs

Asahel Teacher Memorial Trust Vs Brihanmumbai Municipal Corporation Nd 4 Ors.

Vandana v. Kadam and 26 Ors. Vs Hari Om Developers and 3 Ors.

Gandhi Durai S/O. Thanga Raj Durai and 2 Ors. Vs the Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai and Ors. and Zulekha William Hutchinson and Ors.