Judgment A. H. JOSHI, J. ( 1 ) HEARD learned Advocates for the parties. ( 2 ) PETITIONER herein is the proprietor running the business of manufacture and sale of Bidis, having the business location at Kamptee in Nagpur district. Petitioner claims that he employs only ten Bidi-roller home workers, and has two workmen employed to do miscellaneous jobs titled as Tendurwala-cum-Clerk and Relaiwala, who work in the business premises. The petition has been aimed to challenge application of provisions of Employees State Insurance Act to the petitioners factory, in particular, and generally to challenge the amended section 2 (12), i. e. , definition of "factory" and consequential notifications. The prayers read as follows :" (i) strike down the impugned Notification No. S-38012/6/89-SS-1 dated 20-10-1989 issued by the Central Government vis-a-vis the bidi industry in general and the petitioner in particular as violative of Articles 14 and 19 (l) (g) of the Constitution of India; (ii) strike down the impugned Notification No. S-38013/20/82-H1,dated 28-5-1982 issued by the Central Government vis-a-vis the bidi industry in general and the petitioner in particular as violative of Articles 14 and 19 (l) (g) of the Constitution of India; (iii) strike down the amended definition of "factory" under section 2 (12) of the Insurance Act, 1948 vis-a-vis the bidi industry in general and the petitioner in particular being un-constitutional and in violation of Articles 14 and 19 (l) (g) of the Constitution of india; (iv) issue a Writ of Certiorari to quash the impugned notice dated 22-3-1991 - (Annexure "a") given by the respondent No. 4 in respect of code No. 23/2613-10- allotted to the petitioner. "petitioner has also incidentally challenged Notification (Annexure-B) applying various provisions of Employees State Insurance Act, 1948, extended to Kamptee Municipal limits and Cantonment limits within which area petitioners factory is located, and the date has been appointed for effecting the application thereof. Consequently, the petitioner is also challenging letter (Annexure-A) dated 22nd March, 1991, directing the petitioner to comply with the provision as to contribution etc. , under the Employees State Insurance Act until petitioners application for exemption is heard and decided by Competent authority. ( 3 ) SEQUENCE of events shows that soon after application of Employees state Insurance Act to Kamptee area, the petitioner has submitted an application under section 87 of the Employees State Insurance Act to the State Government and claimed exemption. , under the Employees State Insurance Act until petitioners application for exemption is heard and decided by Competent authority. ( 3 ) SEQUENCE of events shows that soon after application of Employees state Insurance Act to Kamptee area, the petitioner has submitted an application under section 87 of the Employees State Insurance Act to the State Government and claimed exemption. Annexure-E to the petition is the copy of forwarding letter and accompaniment thereto is the application in the prescribed form. The substance of the foundation of prayer for exemption contained in the application reads as follows :"we seek exemption from the provisions of E. S. I. Act as we are already governed by the Beedi Workers Welfare Fund Act, 1976 in which employees are not required to make any contribution amount of cess is collected from Employers only as per section 3. This Act has been specially enacted to cover the Beedi Workers who are living in scattered villages, where the E. S. I. , cannot be implemented for administrative reasons, by appropriate Government. You are requested to sympathetically consider our case and grant necessary exemption from provisions of E. S. I. Act from the date of applicability. " (quoted portion is extracted from page Nos. 25 and 26 of Writ petition Paper-book ). The contents of application in the prescribed form contain certain information stated as the basis for claiming exemption, which reads as follows :