M. RAMA JOIS, J. ( 1 ) THE petitioner, who is a Beedi factory, has presented this writ petition praying for quashing the notice issued by the Regional Office of the Employees' State Insurance, calling upon the petitioner to comply with the provisions of the E. S. I. Act and the schemes and regulations framed thereunder. ( 2 ) THE material averments in the writ petition are these:- The petitioner is a partnership firm engaged in the manufacture of beedies, which manufactures about 3. 5 lakh beedies every day. Out of this 1. 25 to 1. 5 lakh beedies are being manufactured within the factory premises and the rest of the beedies are being manufactured through contractors. For the benefit of the workers employed in the beedi industries, the Parliament has enacted Beedi and Cigar Workers (Conditions of Employment) Act, 1966; Beedi workers Welfare Cess Act, 1976 and Beedi Workers' Welfare Fund Act, 1976. Rules have also been framed under these enactments. Under the provisions of the aforesaid enactments, every manufacturer of beedies is under a duty to provide medical and other benefits meant for the welfare of the employees including dispensary and hospital services and that under these enactments, the petitioner is required to pay at the rate of 30 paise per 1,000 beedies and this being the position there was no justification for the e. S. I. Corporation to compel the petitioner to give effect to the provisions of the Act. ( 3 ) IT is not disputed that the petitioner beedi factory comes with in the expression 'establishment'as defined under the Employees State Insurance Act. There is also no dispute that the provisions of the E. S. I. Act in respect of this industry has been brought in the City of Mysore, where the factory of the petitioner is situate and consequently the provisions of the E. S. I. Act are applicable to the petitioner's factory. There is also no dispute that the provisions of the E. S. I. Act in respect of this industry has been brought in the City of Mysore, where the factory of the petitioner is situate and consequently the provisions of the E. S. I. Act are applicable to the petitioner's factory. But the case of the petitioner, however, is that when special legislations have been enacted by the Parliament for the benefit of the beedi and cigar workers and the benefits required to be extended to the persons employed in the beedi manufacturing industry covers substantially the benefits which the establishment is required to extend under the provisions of the Employees State Insurance Act there was no justification for the respondents to call upon the petitioner to give effect to the provisions of the E. S. I. Act. ( 4 ) THE learned counsel for the petitioner contended that there is no specific provision in the E. S. I. Act which provides for the applicability of the said Act to the petitioner's factory. The learned counsel contended that on the principle of special excludes the general, it should be held that the provisions of the E. S. I. Act is inapplicable to the petitioner's factory as there are special legislations providing for the benefits to the employees engaged in beedi industries which are similar to those benefits which an establishment is required to extend to its employees under the E. S. I. Act. In support of this contention, the learned counsel relied on a decision reported in The Life Insurance corporation of India v D. J. Bahadur, AIR 1980 SC 2181 . ( 5 ) IN view of the submission made by the learned counsel for the petitioner, in order to find out as to whether the benefits conferred on the beedi workers under different enactments, cover all the benefits which are required to be extended under the provisions of the E. S. I. Act, we had called upon the learned counsel for the petitioner to file a statement setting out the various benefits extended under Beedi and Cigar workers (Conditions of Employment) Act and other enactments as also the benefits under the E. S. I. Act. Accordingly, the learned counsel has filed a comparative statement. It reads: