ORDER Narendra Nath Tiwari, J. 1. In these writ petitions, same prayer has been made on behalf of the petitioner(s) and as such with the consent of the parties; both the writ petitions have been heard together and are being disposed of by this common order. 2. In these writ petitions, the petitioners have prayed for quashing the order dated 7th August, 2000, whereby the petitioners application for grant of exemption for the year 1996-97 and 1997-98 under Section 87 of the Employees State Insurance Act, 1948 (hereinafter to be referred to as the Act) have been rejected. 3. It has been stated that the petitioner-company has its own welfare scheme more favourable than the scheme provided under the said Act. The employees of the Company are well satisfied with the scheme, which is better in all respect. Being satisfied with the scheme, the appropriate Government had granted exemption for about last ten years. The relevant facts were brought on record, but were not considered. No opportunity of hearing was given either to the Management or to the concerned Union, who are beneficiaries of the scheme before rejecting the petitioners application for exemption for the year 1996-97 and 1997-98. It has been submitted that the subsequent applications submitted by the petitioners are still pending. 4. On behalf of the Employees State Insurance Corporation, it has been contended that the grant of exemption or refusal thereof is decided by the appropriate Government on the basis of the material available for their consideration. The impugned order has been passed taking into consideration all the relevant aspects. 5. Mr. H.K. Mehta, learned Government Advocate, appearing on behalf of the appropriate Government submitted that the reasons have been categorically assigned in the impugned order showing the difference of the benefits given to the employees of the petitioners vis-a-vis the benefits given by the Employees State Insurance Corporation. On bare perusal of the order, it appears that the facilities, which are being provided on same counts by the Corporation, are better than what is being provided by the petitioner. Considering the same and in the interest of the employees, the petitioners prayer for exemption has been refused. There is no illegality or infirmity in the impugned order. 6. Mr. Miren Poddar, learned Counsel, appearing on behalf of the respondent- Union submitted that the impugned order is based on unilateral report. Considering the same and in the interest of the employees, the petitioners prayer for exemption has been refused. There is no illegality or infirmity in the impugned order. 6. Mr. Miren Poddar, learned Counsel, appearing on behalf of the respondent- Union submitted that the impugned order is based on unilateral report. No opportunity of hearing has been given to the petitioners. The employees also were not given any opportunity of hearing. The order has been passed in absence of the petitioner and the respondent-Union. The description given to show that benefits given by the Corporation are better than those provided by the petitioner is top sided picking of some of the provisions, which are minor in nature. 7. The major scheme regarding medical facility etc. has not been taken into consideration the petition providing the best available medical facilities to its employees in Tata Memorial Hospital whereas the condition of the ESIC Hospital is well known. The petitioner-company has been providing other better welfare facilities to its employees and they are satisfied with the same. 8. The respondent-Union has appeared and filed counter-affidavit, stating, inter alia, that they are getting better facilities by the petitioner-company than that of the Corporation. Learned Counsel submitted that the appropriate Government had been granting exemption to the petitioner for the last several years on being satisfied that they provide better facilities than the Employees State Insurance Corporation. There has been no change in the said position. The rejection of the exemption of the petitioners amount to withdrawal of the exemption already given to the petitioners on the same fact situation. No notice or opportunity of hearing was given to the petitioners to meet the points raised in the unilateral report purportedly projecting the benefits given by the Corporation as better than the schemes and benefits provided by the petitioner- Company. 9. I have heard learned Counsel for the parties and considered the facts and materials brought on record. It is an admitted fact that earlier for several years, exemption was granted to the petitioner under Section 87 of the said Act, continuously. There is no allegation that the petitioners have reduced any facility, which was given to its employees. The respondent-Union has also come forward to assert that they are getting better facilities from the petitioner- company than what are provided by the Employees State Insurance Corporation. 10. There is no allegation that the petitioners have reduced any facility, which was given to its employees. The respondent-Union has also come forward to assert that they are getting better facilities from the petitioner- company than what are provided by the Employees State Insurance Corporation. 10. Welfare and the satisfaction of the workman is the prime object. The appropriate Government have been granting exemption on being satisfied that the petitioner-company has better schemes and welfare provisions for last several years. No opportunity of hearing was given to the petitioner or the employees union before reversing the view and rejecting the application for exemption. Refusal of exemption without giving notice to the petitioner and/or the beneficiary i.e. employees union is not fair and proper. Respondent No. 5-Union comes with clear affidavit that the petitioner-company has better welfare schemes and the refusal of the exemption is prejudicial to their interest. They are the target beneficiary. According to the Union, refusal of exemption amounts curtailment of the benefits given to their members. The same to their prejudice cannot be done without giving them an opportunity of hearing. 11. For the reasons aforesaid, this writ petition is allowed. The order dated 7th August, 2000 (Annexure-7) is quashed. The matter is remitted to the concerned appropriate Government for fresh consideration of the application after giving proper opportunity of representation/hearing to the petitioner as well as to the respondent-Union. The direction for opportunity of hearing to the petitioner as well as respondent No. 5 Union is being given considering the facts and circumstances of the instant case and the same shall not be a precedence for the other cases with different facts and circumstances. The Appropriate Government shall dispose of the petition as expeditiously as possible. Until final disposal of the petition, no coercive action shall be taken against the petitioners for non-compliance of the provisions of the said Act.