Order Heard learned counsel for the parties. 2. As the appellants are aggrieved against the order dated 25.7.2012 passed in W.P.(C) No. 1494/2012 as the learned Single Judge has set aside the impugned order dated 8.1.2012 whereby the appellants-petitioners' application for grant of exemption under Section 87 of the Employees' State Insurance Act, 1948 has been rejected by an officer who himself did not hear the writ petitioner and other officers heard. 3. Learned counsel for the appellants submitted that law is now well settled in view of the judgment of the Supreme Court and one of the case is Ossein and Gelatine Manufacturers Association of India vs. Modi Alkalies and Chemicals Ltd., reported in (1989)4 SCC 264 wherein the Hon'ble Supreme Court has considered this issue and held that in a non-judicial proceeding or quasi judicial proceeding if no prejudice is caused to the applicant, then .in that situation, even if the matter is heard by one officer and final order is passed by another officer, that cannot be condemned. 4. It is also submitted that Hon'ble Supreme Court has therefore, rejected the contention that the order can be passed only by that authority who has heard the parties. Learned counsel for the appellants also relied upon the judgment delivered in the case of Gasket Radiators (P) Ltd. vs. Employees' State Insurance Corporation, reported in (1985)2 SCC 68 . It is submitted that Hon'ble Supreme Court while considering the matter of the ESI Hospital has given due importance to the facilities provided to the ESI Hospital and in this case the respondent-writ petitioner claimed that it is providing the better facilities than the facilities which are provided by the ESI Hospital. Such claim has been rejected by the authority concerned after considering the claim of the writ petitioners. Therefore, in view of the above facts, the petitioners were not entitled for exemption. 5. We have considered the submission of the learned counsel for the appellants and perused the reasons given by the learned single Judge as well as in the judgment referred above. In the case of Ossein and Gelatine Manufacturers' Association of India (supra), the Hon'ble Supreme Court, in the facts and circum• stances of that case, held that no prejudice has caused to the appellants by any of the circumstances pointed out by the appellants. In the case of Ossein and Gelatine Manufacturers' Association of India (supra), the Hon'ble Supreme Court, in the facts and circum• stances of that case, held that no prejudice has caused to the appellants by any of the circumstances pointed out by the appellants. The Hon'ble Supreme Court also considered the fact that the proceedings were not judicial as well as they were in the nature of meetings and full minutes were recorded in all of its points discussed in each meeting and in ultimate order all the points which were raised by the aggrieved party were fully considered and in that facts and situation it has been held that since there is no prejudice has been caused to the applicant therefore, the order if has been passed by the authority after considering all the minutes of the meeting taken on various stages then that order is valid and legal. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in this very case also considered the issue whether in a case when an officer designated is authorised to pass order and he himself is not affording opportunity of hearing and other is giving opportunity of hearing and when the competent officer passes order but the Hon'ble Supreme Court did not proceed to decide this issue in the facts of that case. 6. However, in this case, it is not disputed by even the appellants that opportunity of hearing was required to be given and it has been given and once that is the position, in that situation, there must be reason for not passing the order by the concerned authority who heard the matter. Here, in this case, the decision was taken on the basis of the hearing given to the writ petitioner, therefore, we are of the considered opinion that the judgments relied upon by the learned counsel for the appellants has no application. 7. So far as the judgment of the Supreme Court delivered in the case of Gasket Radiators (P) Ltd. (supra), it is clear that the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that the facilities provided by the ESIC Hospitals are having more components than the normal medical facilities. In spite of the said decision, there is specific provision in the Act of 1948 itself which permit exemption of a factory or establishment from registration under the ESI Act, 1948. In spite of the said decision, there is specific provision in the Act of 1948 itself which permit exemption of a factory or establishment from registration under the ESI Act, 1948. Therefore, it depends upon the fact of each case and if that would have been the law that no other can provide more and better facility than the hospitals established under the ESI Act, 1948 then in that situation there would not have been any provision for exemption under the Act of 1948. 8. Accordingly, the L.P.A as well as the I.A. for interim order are also dismissed.