JUDGMENT : Dr. D.P. Choudhury, J. The above three writ petitions, having involved common question of law, they are being disposed of by this common judgment. In all the writ petitions, challenge has been made to the validity of the decision of the Government of India in rejecting the prayer of the petitioners for grant of exemption under the provisions of Employees State Insurance Act, 1948 (hereinafter called “the Act”) from the purview of the Act. 2. The factual matrix leading the case of the petitioner, in O.J.C. Nos. 3350 and 3552 of 1999, is that the petitioner-Company is a Corporate Body having its Corporate Office at Bhubaneswar and other units at Angul, Vizag and Damanojdi and its Captive Power Plant at Nalco Nagar. These two cases relate to employees working in Head Office at Bhubaneswar and Captive Power Plant at Nalco Nagar, Angul. Similarly, O.J.C. No.5554 of 1999 relates to Nalco Progressive Employees Union (H.M.S.) (in short ‘Employees’ Union’) representing the employees of Smelter Unit at Nalco Nagar, Angul. 3. It is the further case of the petitioner-Company that considering the nature of duties, the type of medical facilities available in the locality, involvement of importance in the matter of maintenance of health of its employees, damages anticipated due to non-availability of medical benefits to its employees and considering its obligation to its employees in the year 1982, took a decision to open a full fledged hospital which was fully maintained and managed by its Company in the NALCO Township at Angul. The hospital has got indoor and outdoor facilities in all discipline like Radiology, Ultra Sound, Medicine, Physiotherapy, Orthopaedics, Gynaecology, Surgery etc. Besides providing allopathic treatment, the hospital also provides treatment in Ayurvedic and Homeopathy. Be it stated, the hospital of the petitioner-company not only provides treatment to its employees but also provides medicines to the patients round the clock. It has also fleet of ambulances to remove the patients from plant site accident spots as well as from the residence of the employees and their family members facing any problem. 4. It is the further case of the petitioner-company that the medical facilities available at Head Office of the petitioner-company are also equally available in its office at Angul, Damanjodi and Vizag. 4. It is the further case of the petitioner-company that the medical facilities available at Head Office of the petitioner-company are also equally available in its office at Angul, Damanjodi and Vizag. It is alleged inter alia that for the first time, the provisions of Employees State Insurance Act, 1948 (hereinafter called “the Act”) made applicable with effect from 16.1.1996 for which letters were sent to the petitioner-company on 6.11.1998 and 5.3.1999 under Annexures-1 and 2 respectively in O.J.C. No. 5552 of 1999 to get ready with the documents for its Captive Power plant for inspection. It is the claim of the petitioner-company that there is a provision in the Act that those who are earning less than Rs.3000/- per month can avail the benefit of the Act. None of the employees of the petitioner-company is drawing salary less than Rs.3000/- per month for which the petitioner is exempted from the purview of the Act. On 6.1.1997, the Rules framed under the provisions of the Act had undergone changes by increasing the per month wage to Rs.6500/- with effect from 1.1.1997. Be it stated that the employees of the petitioner-company at times faced trouble for the reasons that 200 people out of 1500 having salary of Rs.6500/- got the benefit of the Act but rest of the employees could not come under the purview of the Act. Moreover, the employees at Damanjodi and Vizag of the petitioner-company became not covered under the ESI Scheme for which they are not required to contribute. In case of maternity benefit under the ESI Scheme, an employee will be eligible to get the benefit provided there is contribution for 80 days in two preceding consecutive contribution periods those who are eligible to get the benefit under the ESI Scheme, each of them has to make entry into the insurable employment medical benefit against a monthly contribution of Rs.10 whereas this stipulation/condition is not under the medical scheme of the petitioner-company. Moreover, the ESI Dispensary running in a single room on rent basis is not enough to cater the need of the employees. Due to such anomalies, there is hue and cry between the employees of the petitioner-company. So, the petitioner-company wrote a letter to the authority under the Act seeking exemption under Section 88 of the Act. The petitioner, in OJC No. 5554 of 1999, supports such move of the petitioner-Company. Due to such anomalies, there is hue and cry between the employees of the petitioner-company. So, the petitioner-company wrote a letter to the authority under the Act seeking exemption under Section 88 of the Act. The petitioner, in OJC No. 5554 of 1999, supports such move of the petitioner-Company. But the opposite parties 1 and 2, without affording the petitioner-company and Employees’ Union the opportunity of being heard, rejected the request of exemption of petitioner from the purview of the Act. So, in the present writ petitions, the petitioner-company and the Employees’ Union challenged the said letter of rejection on the ground that the petitioner-company and Employees’ Union have not been given the opportunity of being heard while rejecting their claim for exemption under Sections 88 and 89 of the Act and consequently the principle of natural justice has been violated. 5. Separate counter affidavits have been filed in all the writ petitions but the facts of the opposite parties are more or less same. It is stated that the petitioners have no cause of action for filing these writ petitions and the ESI Scheme is absolute beneficial to the employees of NALCO. The exemption granted under the ESI Scheme to the unit of the petitioner-company at Vishakhapatnam may not be taken as a ground for grant of exemption to the petitioner’s establishments in Orissa as in each case, prayer of exemption is considered by the Government separately. Be it stated that under the provisions of the Act the medical facilities are available to the dependant family members in the following manner: “(i) Out Patient treatment; (ii) Domiciliary treatment (treatment by visit at the residence of the employees); (iii) Specialist consultation including detection and treatment of occupational diseases; (iv) In patient treatment; (v) Free supply drugs, dressings; (vi) X-ray and laboratory investigations; (vii) Vaccination and preventive inoculations; (viii) Ante-natal and post-natal care; (ix) Ambulance service or conveyance charges for going to hospitals and diagnostic centres etc; (x) Family welfare services and other National health Programme services; (xi) Medical Certification; (xii) Free supply of artificial limb, hearing aids, artificial dentures, spectacles (for employees only) and artificial appliances like spinal supports, cervical collars, walking collipers, crutches, wheel chairs and cardiac pace makers; and (xiii) Super-specialist facility such as dialysis/dialysis with kidney/renal transplantation, heart transplantation, open heart surgery and treatment of malignant disease like cancer etc. 6. 6. Besides, the ESI Hospital is functioning at Bhubaneswar with specialist services, facilities of pathological investigations, X-ray, Ultra Sonogram, ICU, Baby Incubator and other modern gadgets along with Ambulance facilities. There is provision under Regulation 96-A for re-imbursement of expenses incurred in respect of Medical treatment of the insured person and their family members. The facilities made available by the ESI Corporation are no way less than the medical facilities provided by the petitioner-company. Moreover, the Corporation provides cash benefits to the insured persons in the event of abstention due to sickness, maternity and employment injury including permanent disablement. Under the ESI Rules, the Corporation may incur an expenditure up to a limit of Rs.50,00,000/- (Rupees Fifty Lakhs). So, the question of exemption of the petitioner-company or Union from the purview of the Act has been rightly denied by the State Government. The opposite party no.1, in consultation with the opposite partly no.2-Corporation, has refused to exempt the petitioner-company on valid reasons. When statutory duty vested with the appropriate Government has been exercised with right perspective, there cannot be any allegation purported with violation of principles of natural justice. On the other hand, the grievance purportedly made by the petitioner-company in OJC Nos. 3350, 5552 and 5554 of 1999 are baseless, frivolous and contrary to law. So, the writ petitioners in all the writ petitions are not entitled to any relief sought for. SUBMISSION 7. Mr. R.K. Rath, learned Senior Advocate for the petitioner-Company submitted that the petitioner, being a huge Company, has got its hospital for its employees to provide all kinds of medical facilities including providing medicines and it has got a Corporate Hospital with 22 doctors, nurses and other medical staff providing medical facilities by the Super Specialist Doctors to its employees. According to him, the opposite party-ESIC sent letter asking the petitioner-company to prepare the documents for verification as the Act covers the Company. He further submitted that the Company made correspondence with the ESIC to exempt the Company from the purview of the Act as it discharges responsibility for its employees by providing best medical facilities to them in their hospital. The opposite party no.1, without giving opportunity to the petitioner-Company and its employees of being heard, rejected the proposal of exemption and communicated the same to the Company which is against the principle of natural justice. The opposite party no.1, without giving opportunity to the petitioner-Company and its employees of being heard, rejected the proposal of exemption and communicated the same to the Company which is against the principle of natural justice. He relied on the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court rendered in the case of M.S. Gill -V- The Chief Election Commissioner; A.I.R. 1978 SC 851 where Their Lordships are of the view that even if the exemption is denied, before any such decision is taken, the parties must be given reasonable opportunity of being heard. He further submitted that due to violation of principles of natural justice, the letter of refusal to exempt the petitioner-Company from the purview of the Act is bad in law and illegal for which it should be set aside. 8. Mr. D.R. Swain, learned Central Government Counsel appearing for the Union of India submitted that there is no provision under Section 89 of the Act to hear the parties before passing an order of refusal of exemption for which he supported the impugned letters. 9. Mr. Dash, learned counsel appearing for the ESIC, supporting the argument of Mr. Swain, learned Central Government Counsel, submitted that there is no provision under Sections 88 and 89 of the Act to provide personal hearing to the concerned Company or person or Union to ask them for providing information or hearing the interested parties. He submitted that the only provision is that the decision would be taken by the concerned authority and the same would be intimated to the concerned parties. According to him, in absence of any provision, the ESIC is not duty bound to recommend the petitioner’s case for exemption. So, he submitted that all the writ petitions should be rejected. POINT FOR DETERMINATION 10. The main point for consideration is whether the petitioners are entitled to be heard before rejection of their prayer for exemption passed under Sections 88 and 89 of the of the Act. DISCUSSION 11. It is the admitted fact that NALCO being the petitioners in OJC Nos.3350 and 5552 of 1999 and the Union being the petitioner in OJC No.5554 of 1999 have claimed that the medical facilities are being available to the employees in all respect. It is not in dispute that the Corporation has got the hospital at Bhubaneswar and dispensary at different units. It is not in dispute that the Corporation has got the hospital at Bhubaneswar and dispensary at different units. It is also not in dispute that the unit of NALCO at Vizag is exempted from the provision of the Act and Rules made thereunder whereas the Corporation issued notice to the petitioner-company to make the other units of the petitioner-company amenable to the provisions of the Act and Rules made thereunder. 12. It is also admitted fact that the petitioner-company has sent letter on 2/16.9.1997 vide Annexure-1 in OJC No.3350 of 1999 to the Government of India, Ministry of Labour to grant exemption from the coverage under the Act as per the provisions of Section 87 of the said Act. Similarly, in the other writ petition, i.e., OJC No. 5554 of 1999 filed by the Employees’ Union prayed for exempting the petitioner-company and employees from the purview of the provisions of the Act and Rules made thereunder. It is also the admitted fact that the unit of petitioner-company at Vishakhapatnam has been exempted from the purview of the Act and Rules made thereunder with certain conditions. 13. Under Office Memorandum dated 8.1.1999 vide Annexure-5 to OJC No.3350 of 1999, the Government of India, Ministry of Labour has refused to grant exemption from the purview of the Act in regard to the Company and its regular employees working at Smelter Plant and Captive Power Plant of the petitioner-company and intimated the same to the Government of India in the Department of Mines and then by letter dated 14.1.1999 (Annexure-4), the Department of Mines informed the petitioner-company that the exemption has been refused on the ground that the benefits provided by the company are inferior to those available under the opposite party no.2-ESI Corporation. 14. Mr. Rath, learned Senior Advocate appearing for the NALCO challenged such refusal of exemption basing on assertion that the Corporation and Government of India should have provided opportunity to the petitioner-company and petitioner-Union of being heard before coming to such observation. Since they have not been given opportunity of being heard, such refusal of exemption is violative of principles of natural justice. Since they have not been given opportunity of being heard, such refusal of exemption is violative of principles of natural justice. On the other hand, learned counsel for the opposite parties 1 and 2 submitted that there is no provision under Sections 87 and 88 of the Act to provide opportunity of hearing to the concerned company or Union respectively, but the said provisions only enshrine that the Government of India may or may not exempt the establishment or employees from the purview of the provisions of the Act and it is the absolute discretion of the concerned Government to refuse the exemption. Since the statute does not permit to hear the parties before refusing the exemption, the order of the Union Government or Corporation have no statutory duty to afford opportunity of hearing. On the other hand, he vehemently opposed the submission of the learned counsels for the petitioner-company and the Employees’ Union. 15. Section 87 of Chapter-VIII of the Act prescribes that appropriate Government may, by notification in the Official Gazette and subject to such condition as may be specified in the notification, exempt any factory or establishment or class of factories or establishments in any specified area from the operation of this Act under certain conditions. Similarly, Sections 88 and 89 of the Act are placed below for better appreciation: “88. Exemption of persons or class of persons-The appropriate Government may, by notification in the Official Gazette and subject to such conditions as it may deem fit to impose, exempt any person or class of persons employed in any factory or establishment or class of factories or establishments to which this Act applies from the operation of the Act. 89. Corporation to make representation- No exemption shall be granted or renewed under section 87 or Section 88, unless a reasonable opportunity has been given to the Corporation to make any representation it may wish to make in regard to the proposal and such representation has been considered by the appropriate Government.” 16. From the aforesaid provisions, it is clear that the appropriate Government may exempt the establishment or factory or class of persons employed in such factory or establishment from the purview of the Act and before such exemption is extended, the appropriate Government will give opportunity to the Corporation to make representation in regard to the proposal which should be considered properly. Here, question arises when there is an opportunity given to the Corporation to make representation, the absence of giving opportunity to the concerned factory or establishment to put up their grievance amounts to violation of principles of natural justice. 17. The principles of natural justice has been well dealt in different contexts. In the case of Russell -V- Duke of Norfolk and others; (1949) 1 All E.R. 109, 118 where Their Lordships have observed that the requirements of natural justice must depend on circumstances of the case, the nature of inquiry, the rules under which the Tribunal is acting the subject-matter that is being dealt with, and so forth. It has been also held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of M.S. Gill & another -V- The Chief Election Commissioner, New Delhi & others; AIR 1978 SC 851 , at paragraph-55 where Their Lordships have observed as follows: “Normally, natural justice involves the irritating inconvenience for men in authority, of having to hear both sides since notice and opportunity are its very marrow. And this principle is so integral to good government, the onus is on him who urges exclusion to make out why. Lord Denning expressed the paramout policy consideratlon behind this rule of public law (while dealing with the nemo judex aspect) with expressiveness. "Justice must be rooted in confidence: and confidence is destroyed when right-minded people go away thinking 'the judge was biased”. "We may adapt it to the audi alteram situation by the altered statement: "Justice must be felt to be just by the community if democratic legality is to animate the rule of law.” Xx xx xx xx” 18. It is also reported in the case of S.L. Kapoor -V- Jagmohan & others; AIR 1981 SC 136 at paragraph 24 where Their Lordships have observed as follows: “The matter has also been treated as an application of the general principle that justice should not only be done but should be seen to be done. Jackson's Natural Justice (1980 Edn.) contains a very interesting discussion of the subject. He says: "The distinction between justice being done and being seen to be done has been emphasised in many cases. Jackson's Natural Justice (1980 Edn.) contains a very interesting discussion of the subject. He says: "The distinction between justice being done and being seen to be done has been emphasised in many cases. Xx xx xx xx The requirement that justice should be seen to be done may be regarded as a general principle which in some cases can be satisfied only by the observance of the rules of natural justice or as itself forming one of those rules. Both explanations of the significance of the maxim are found in Lord Widgery C.J's judgment in R. V. Home Secretary, Ex. P. Hosenball (1977) 1 W.L.R. 766, 772, whereafter saying that "the principles of natural justice are those fundamental rules, the breach of which will prevent justice from being seen to be done" he went on to describe the maxim as "one of the rules generally accepted in the bundle of the rules making up natural justice.” It is the recognition of the importance of the requirement that justice is seen to be done that justifies the giving of a remedy to a litigant even when it may be claimed that a decision alleged to be vitiated by a breach of natural justice would still have been reached had a fair hearing been given by an impartial tribunal. The maxim is applicable precisely when the Court is concerned not with a case of actual injustice but with the appearance of injustice, or possible injustice. In Altco Ltd. v. Sutherland (1971) 2 Lloyd's Rep. 515 Donaldson J said that the court, in deciding whether to interfere where an arbitrator had not given a party a full hearing was not concerned with whether a further hearing would produce a different or the same result. It was important that the parties should not only be given justice, but, as reasonable men, know that they had justice or "to use the time hallowed phrase" that justice should not only be done but be seen to be done. In R. V. Thames Magistrates Court, ex.p. Polemis (1974)1 W.L.R. 1371, the applicant obtained an order of certiorari to quash his conviction by a stipendiary magistrate on the ground that he had not had sufficient time to prepare his defence. The Divisional Court rejected the argument that, in its discretion, it ought to refuse relief because the applicant had no defence to the charge. The Divisional Court rejected the argument that, in its discretion, it ought to refuse relief because the applicant had no defence to the charge. "It is again absolutely basic to our system that justice must not only be done but must manifestly be seen to be done. If justice was so clearly not seen to be done, as on the afternoon in question here, it seems to me that it is no answer to the applicant to say: 'Well, even if the case had been properly conducted, the result would have been the same'. That is mixing up doing justice with seeing that justice is done (per Lord Widgery C.J. at p. 1375)". Further, Their Lordships have observed that: “In our view the principles of natural justice know of no exclusionary rule dependent on whether it would have made any difference if natural justice had been observed. The non-observance of natural justice is itself prejudice to any man and proof of prejudice independently of proof of denial of natural justice is unnecessary. It will come from a person who has denied justice that the person who has been denied justice is not prejudiced. As we said earlier where on the admitted or indisputable facts only one conclusion is possible and under the law only one penalty is permissible, the Court may not issue its writ to compel the observance of natural justice, not because it is not necessary to observe natural justice but because Courts do not issue futile writs.” 19. With due respect to the aforesaid decisions, it is clear that fairness in decision can be only revealed from the reasonable opportunity of being heard afforded to the person concerned who is denied of any right or benefit. When non-observance of the natural justice is prejudice to the concerned person, the Court has to issue writ to compel the observance of principles of natural justice. 20. The aforesaid decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court have been followed by this Court in the case of The Orissa Industries Limited & another -V- Union of India & others; 71 (1991) CLT 811. In the said decision, this Court at paragraph-3 of the judgment, have observed as follows: “3. xx xx xx xx In the present case, we have found that even the Mazdoor Union has joined hands with the employer in demanding exemption. In the said decision, this Court at paragraph-3 of the judgment, have observed as follows: “3. xx xx xx xx In the present case, we have found that even the Mazdoor Union has joined hands with the employer in demanding exemption. We are, therefore, of the view that it would be in the interest of justice if along with the Corporation, both the employer and the Lathikata Mazdoor Union, and for that matter, any other Union in existence, are heard in the matter, and we would direct the Government to do so. Let the question be decided by the Government after hearing all the aforesaid parties. After this is done, it would be open to the Government to decide whether to grant any exemption, and if so, whether from one or more provisions of the Act as contemplated by Section 91 of the Act.” 21. With due regard to the above decision, it must be observed that the petitioner-company and the Union should have been afforded reasonable opportunity to place their contention before the Corporation and the Government of India. When the opposite party no.2-Corporation has been statutorily provided opportunity to give representation to plead their case, it was wise for Union Government/State Government to ask the concerned establishment or company or Union to adduce evidence in favour of claim made by them because the exemption is rejected to petitioner-Company or its employees. The similar argument of opposite parties 1 and 2 made before this Court in the above case about absence of provisions giving opportunity to hear institution or its employees before taking decision under Section 89 of the Act has been repelled by this Court. In the aforesaid case, the petitioner-company and the employees’ Union were not given opportunity of being heard for which this Court, relying on the decisions of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the above cited cases, directed the Union Government to hear all the parties concerned and then take a decision. In the instant case, no opportunity, as observed, has been given to the petitioner-company and the petitioner-Union before refusing the exemption to the establishment or the employees thereof from the purview of the Act. 22. In the instant case, no opportunity, as observed, has been given to the petitioner-company and the petitioner-Union before refusing the exemption to the establishment or the employees thereof from the purview of the Act. 22. On further scrutiny, it appears that when the Corporation makes representation stating that the petitioner-company has no better medical facility than the Corporation, this matter ought to have been inquired by the Government of India before taking the decision of refusal of exemption because there must be finding of facts whether the petitioner-company has got better medical facilities to meet the requirements of the employees and whether they are actually receiving the benefits of the medical facilities. It is necessary for Government to weigh the evidence/material for both sides keeping in mind the interest of workmen/employees and then take a decision. So, considering the nature of exemption, the petitioner-company or their employee must be given opportunity of being heard before the Government of India, opposite party no.1 takes a decision to refuse exemption under Sections 87/88 of the Act read with Section 89 of the Act. Thus, relying upon the decisions of the Hon’ble Supreme Court as well as of this Court, the Court is of the view that in the instant case, the principles of natural justice has been violated. The issue is answered accordingly. CONCLUSION 23. In view of the foregoing discussions, when the principles of natural justice have been violated for not giving due opportunity to the petitioner-company or Union of being heard, the decision of the Corporation and the Union of India is bad in law. On the other hand, the impugned Annexures dated 8.1.1999 and 14.1.1999 in the respective writ petitions denying the exemption of the petitioner-company and the employees from the purview of the Act and Rules made thereudner are liable to be quashed and the Court do so. At the same time, the opposite party no.1 is directed to afford reasonable opportunity of hearing to the petitioners-company, Employees’ Union and the opposite party no.2-ESI Corporation and after hearing them, it is for the Government of India, opposite party no.1 to take decision as to whether the exemption should be granted to the petitioner-company and its employees from the purview of the Act keeping in mind the protection of interest of employees or workmen. It is needless to say that opposite party no.1 will ensure that during hearing also, there would be exchange of pleading between the parties and leading of evidence by respective parties with argument. It is further directed that the opposite party no.1 would complete the entire exercise within a period of three months from the date of receipt of the Writ from this Court. The Writ Petitions are disposed of accordingly.