Tanacademy Matriculation v. The State Of Tamilnadu
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED : 06.09.2017 CORAM :
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE T.RAJA WP(MD)No.16866 of 2017 and W.M.P.(MD)Nos.13444 and 13445 of 2017 Tanacademy Matriculation School, Rep. by its Correspondent, M.Haja Moideen, Gandhi Nagar North, Kumbakonam, Thanjavur District - 621 001.
... Petitioner vs.
1.The State of Tamil Nadu, Rep. by Principal Secretary to Government, Labour and Employment Department, Fort St. George, Chennai - 600 009.
2.The Regional Director, ESI Regional Corporation [Tamil Nadu], 143, Sterling Road, Chennai - 600 034.
... Respondents Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, for issuance of a Writ of Declaration, declaring that Notification No.51, dated 29.12.2010 in G.O.Ms.No.237, Labour and Employment [K1] Department, dated 26.11.2010, issued by the first respondent as illegal and unconstitutional and as such the matter was squarely covered by the order of this Court in W.A.No.1233 of 2011 etc. batch, dated 09.06.2015.
For Petitioner : Mr.E.Vijay Anand For R1 : Mr.D.Muruganantham Additional Government Pleader For R2 : Mr.K.C.Ramalingam
ORDER
Tanacademy Matriculation School, Rep. by its Correspondent has brought this petition challenging the impugned G.O.(Ms).No.237, Labour and Employment (K1), dated 26.11.2010, issued by the first respondent as illegal and unconstitutional and as such, the matter was squarely covered by the order of this Court in W.A.No.1233 of 2011 etc. batch dated 09.06.2015.
2.Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner school is an un-aided Educational Institution and therefore, the said Educational Institution is not free to charge its own fee, since the same is fixed by the Fee Fixation Committee appointed as per the directions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Islamic Academy of Education reported in 2003 (6) SCC 697 and P.A.Inamdar reported in 2005 (6) SCC 537. He would further submit that since the Educational Institutions cannot charge over and above the fee fixed by the authorities, it will be impossible for the partly Aided Educational Institution to take the additional burden imposed by the Impugned Notification for payment of ESI Contribution. While so, G.O.Ms.No.237, Labour and Employment (K1), dated 26.11.
2010, insisting upon the Minority Educational Institution to make ESI contribution is arbitrary. 3.Learned counsel for ESI/second respondent would submit that when a batch of Special Leave Petitions were filed before the Hon'ble Apex Court by the Educational Institutions against the order of the Kerala High Court, dated 03.07.2009 in W.P.No.20279 of 2008, taking a stand that they are also equally exempted from the said Government Order, the Hon'ble Apex Court, repelling the said contention, dismissed the same. He would further submit that if any issue is pending before the Larger Bench of the Hon'ble Apex Court, the Court would not have dismissed any subsequent Special Leave Petitions, therefore dismissal of SLP shows that there is no issue pending before the Larger Bench.
4.When similar writ petitions were filed with regard to the extension of Insurance Scheme for Private Educational Institutions, the said writ petitions and writ appeals were clubbed together and decided Writ Appeal No.918 of 2013 etc. batch, wherein the Hon'ble Division Bench of this Court by common judgment dated 16.06.2015, had disposed of the same on the following terms: ''2. In view of the aforesaid position, the writ appeals and the writ petitions are disposed of by agreement that the interim orders would continue till the disposal of the matter by the Honourable Supreme Court and the parties would naturally remain bound by the legal position enunciated by the Honourable Supreme Court on such decision being rendered. No costs. Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petitions are closed."
5.Since the issue involved in this writ petition is identical to that of the case dealt with by the Hon'ble First Bench of this Court, this writ petition deserves to be disposed of in the same line.
6.If the second respondent takes any such decision, it is for him to move appropriate Review Application before the First Bench. Leaving that option, he cannot take a stand that the writ petition is not maintainable in view of the dismissal on 03.07.2009. As I am bound by the above order passed by the Hon'ble First Bench, this
writ petition is disposed of in terms of paragraph 2 of the above order dated 16.06.2015 passed in Writ Appeal No.918 of 2013 etc. batch. No costs. Consequently, connected W.M.Ps are closed. Sd/- Assistant Registrar(RTI) /True Copy/ Sub Assistant Registrar To 1.The Principal Secretary to Government of Tamil Nadu, Labour and Employment Department, Fort St. George, Chennai - 600 009.
2.The Regional Director, ESI Regional Corporation [Tamil Nadu], 143, Sterling Road, Chennai - 600 034.
+1cc to THE SPECIAL GOVERNMENT PLEADER in SR. No. 77475 +1cc to Mr.K.C.RAMALINGAM Advocate in SR. No. 77037 +1cc to Mr.E.VIJAY ANAND Advocate in SR. No. 77145 SMN2 JS/SV.MMS/SAR.2/21.09.2017/3P-6C WP(MD)No.16866 of 2017 06.09.2017