JUDGMENT : RAJA BASU CHOWDHURY, J. 1. The instant writ petition has been filed, inter alia, challenging an order dated 9th June, 2023 and the communication letter dated 12th June, 2023, issued by the Additional Chief Secretary, Labour Department, Government of West Bengal. 2. Shorn of unnecessary details, the facts are that the petitioner no.1 is a society registered under the provisions of the Societies Registration Act, 1961 and is dedicated to provide health services to the marginalised section of the society who are in need of health services. In usual course, the petitioner no.1 had applied for exemption under Section 87 of the Employees’ State Insurance Act, 1948, sometimes in November, 2011. The said application was considered by the appropriate Government through the Principal Secretary, who by an order dated 1st November, 2012 while considering the grant of an exemption under Section 91 of the Employees’ State Insurance Act, 1948 (hereinafter referred to as the “said Act”) was, inter alia, pleased to observe as follows:- “The Applicant Establishment, it appears, is a Charitable organization. The way the activities of the establishment are administered apparently justify its claim for exemption from application of the provisions of ESI Act. The organization therefore may be considered eligible for exemption in terms of Section 91 of the Act. However, since such order of exemption is required to be issued with consent of the Corporation, Additional Commissioner & Regional Director is requested to examine and advise suitably on the limits of exemption that may be considered in case of this establishment. Since a decision on exemption under Section 91 of the Act will take some time, exemption hereby is given to the Applicant Establishment under Section 87 of the Act for one year from 01.4.2012 to 31.3.2013.” 3. Since then, the appropriate Government had from time to time granted exemption to the petitioner no.1. Incidentally, by an order dated 17th November, 2016, the appropriate Government, had, inter alia, rejected the petitioner no.1’s application for grant of exemption, for the period from 1st April, 2016 to 31st March, 2017. 4. Although, the writ petitioners had challenged such order before this Court by filing a writ petition, which was registered as WPO. 1113 of 2016, notwithstanding such petition being entertained by this Court, the same was ultimately dismissed for default on 15th January, 2020. 5. 4. Although, the writ petitioners had challenged such order before this Court by filing a writ petition, which was registered as WPO. 1113 of 2016, notwithstanding such petition being entertained by this Court, the same was ultimately dismissed for default on 15th January, 2020. 5. Since then, the petitioners had made a representation dated 28th September, 2021, calling upon the Hon’ble Labour Minister to look into the matter, for grant of permanent exemption to the petitioner no.1. Simultaneously, since WPO. 1113 of 2016 was dismissed, without a decision on merit, the petitioners also filed a fresh writ petition challenging the order dated 17th November, 2016, which was registered as WPO. 917 of 2022. 6. It is, in connection with the aforesaid petition that a Coordinate Bench of this Hon’ble Court, by taking note of the order dated 1st November, 2012 passed by the Principal Secretary, Labour Department, whereunder the petitioner no. 1 was found to be eligible, for grant of exemption under Section 91 of the said Act, by an order dated 17th February, 2022, directed the Joint Secretary, Government of West Bengal, Labour Department, Directorate of ESI Branch, to consider and dispose of the representation filed by the petitioner no.1 on 28th September, 2021, within one month from the date of communication of the order, after giving reasonable opportunity of hearing to all the interested parties. The Hon’ble Court by the aforesaid order had also directed the concerned authority, in considering the representation to take into account the observations made by the Principal Secretary, Department of Labour, Government of West Bengal, in his order dated 1st November, 2012, without in any way, being influenced by the observation made in the order dated 17th November, 2016 as aforesaid. 7. Pursuant to the aforesaid order, the Principal Secretary, Department of Labour, Government of West Bengal, had given an opportunity of hearing to the petitioners and thereafter, had passed an order dated 8th June, 2022 thereby disposing of such representation, by granting exemption to the petitioner no.1’s establishment under Section 87 of the said Act, from 1st July, 2022 to 31st March, 2023. Subsequently, by a separate order dated 27th July, 2022, the Deputy Secretary, Government of West Bengal was, inter alia, pleased to record the approval of the Governor, for renewal of exemption in respect of the coverage of regular employees of the petitioner no.1 under Section 87 of the said Act, for the period from 1st July, 2022 to 31st March, 2023. 8. The petitioners, however, being aggrieved with the failure on the part of the Joint Secretary, Government of West Bengal, Department of Labour, to hear out and consider the petitioners’ representation filed on 28th September, 2021, insofar as the same concerned non consideration of the exemption under Section 91A of the said Act, had filed a writ petition which was registered as WPO. 2471 of 2022. 9. On contested hearing, this Court by an order dated 9th February, 2023 by taking note of the order of the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court dated 17th February, 2022 directing the Joint Secretary, Department of Labour, Government of West Bengal to decide the petitioners’ representation for granting exemption, in the light of the order passed by the Principal Secretary, Department of Labour, Government of West Bengal on 1st November, 2012, and the Principal Secretary himself in its order on 8th June, 2022 having concluded that the petitioner no.1 is otherwise entitled to exemption, had directed the Principal Secretary to adjudicate upon the issue, as to whether the petitioner no.1 is entitled to exemption under Section 88 read with Section 91 of the said Act, and if the petitioner no.1 was found eligible, to grant such exemption. 10. The petitioners claim that in terms of the aforesaid order dated 9th February, 2023, the Additional Chief Secretary, Labour Department, Government of West Bengal had issued an order directing the petitioner no. 2 to appear personally for hearing on 12th April 2023. Pursuant to the aforesaid the petitioner no. 2 had attended the hearing and had also made submissions, however, in course of such hearing, although, the Employees’ State Insurance Corporation (Corporation) had submitted a written objection, despite request, copy of such objection was not made available to the petitioners. It is the petitioners’ case that the Additional Chief Secretary was of the view that if the petitioners were interested to obtain copy of such document, they may apply in writing, for the same to be supplied to them. It is the petitioners’ case that the Additional Chief Secretary was of the view that if the petitioners were interested to obtain copy of such document, they may apply in writing, for the same to be supplied to them. The petitioners, accordingly, by a letter dated 25th April, 2023 had sought for a copy of such document/objection filed by the Employees’ State Insurance Corporation. Despite such written request, the objection submitted by the Corporation was not supplied instead, by cover of letter dated 12th June, 2023, the Additional Chief Secretary by placing reliance on the objection filed on behalf of the Corporation was of the view that the employees of the petitioner no.1’s establishment are not receiving benefits substantially similar or superior to the benefits provided under the Scheme of Corporation and that the way activities of the establishment are being administered does not justify its claim for exemption from the application of provisions of the said Act. Accordingly, it was held that the petitioner no.1 is not eligible for exemption in terms of the provisions of Section 91 of the said Act, for not fulfilling the conditions of proviso to Section 87 of the said Act. 11. Mr. Chattopadhyay, learned advocate representing the petitioners, submits that the aforesaid decision had been taken by the Additional Chief Secretary in a manner which is unknown in law. The order is violative of the principles of natural justice. No opportunity was given to the petitioners to controvert the objections taken by the Corporation. In fact the petitioners were never made aware as to what were the objections raised by the Corporation, until passing of the Order impugned. In absence of such disclosure, the petitioners could not appropriately respond. The same severely prejudiced the petitioners. By referring to the order under challenge, it is submitted that the benefits that the petitioners provide to its volunteers are more superior than that has been claimed by the Corporation. The health benefits are being provided in addition to various insurance policies. By reasons of failure on the part of the Additional Chief Secretary to permit the petitioners to be entitled to a copy of the objection filed by the Corporation, the petitioners could not specify the facilities and/or benefits provides to its volunteers, by comparing the same with that what was made available by the Corporation. By reasons of failure on the part of the Additional Chief Secretary to permit the petitioners to be entitled to a copy of the objection filed by the Corporation, the petitioners could not specify the facilities and/or benefits provides to its volunteers, by comparing the same with that what was made available by the Corporation. By referring to the third column being the remarks column of Annexure-A to the order dated 9th June, 2023, it is submitted that it has been claimed that no expenditure had been shown in the audited accounts as regards expenses incurred for providing health services. Such a finding according to the petitioners is perverse. No opportunity was given to the petitioners to explain the accounts. The Additional Chief Secretary also misconstrued the accounts, not only for the current year but for the previous years as well, for which exemption had been granted. The Additional Chief Secretary further overlooked the relevant considerations and had also refused the petitioners’ an opportunity to explain which resulted in failure of justice. By referring to the order dated 27th July, 2022 issued by the Deputy Secretary to the Government of West Bengal, it is submitted that the Additional Chief Secretary did not identify the change in circumstances, for the respondents to arrive at a completely different decision than the one which has been taken by them earlier. The aforesaid order also does not take note of the directions passed by this Court dated 9th February, 2023, which remains unchallenged. Having regard to the aforesaid, it is submitted that the aforesaid decision taken by the Additional Chief Secretary is perverse. The same seriously prejudiced the petitioners as such the same should be set aside. 12. Per contra, Mr. Kishore Dutta, learned Senior Advocate representing the respondent nos. 1 and 2, in an attempt to justify the order passed by the Additional Chief Secretary on 9th June, 2023, submits that it is immaterial whether the written objection was not made over to the petitioners for the purpose of ascertaining whether the order stands vitiated. Simply because, a copy of an objection was not made over to the petitioners, the same does not entitle the petitioners to claim that the said order stands vitiated. The petitioners should be in a position to identify the prejudice caused by reasons of non-supply of the aforesaid objection. Simply because, a copy of an objection was not made over to the petitioners, the same does not entitle the petitioners to claim that the said order stands vitiated. The petitioners should be in a position to identify the prejudice caused by reasons of non-supply of the aforesaid objection. Admittedly, the objection has now been supplied to the petitioners along with the copy of the order. Notwithstanding the aforesaid, the petitioners have not been able to identify in the writ petition the prejudice caused or suffered by the petitioners. There is also no challenge to the findings made in the remarks column. The principles of natural justice is not a straight jacket formula, even in the application of doctrine of the fair play, there must be some real prejudice to the complainant, without such prejudice being identified, the order should not be set aside on the mere technicality of non-service of the objection. According to him, non-supply of the objection would at best infringe the rights of the petitioners. The petitioners in such a case are obliged to demonstrate the prejudice caused while challenging the order. In the present case, no attempt has been made by the petitioners to question the findings. In support of his contention, reliance is placed on the following judgments: i. Natwar Singh v. Director of Enforcement & Anr., reported in (2010) 13 SCC 255 ii. Sohan Lal Gupta & Ors. v. Ashi Devi Gupta & Ors., reported in (2003) 7 SCC 492 iii. Chairman, State Bank of India & Anr. v. M. J. James, reported in (2022) 2 SCC 301 13. Independent of the above, it is submitted that in order to seek an exemption under Section 88, the conditions referred in the first proviso to Section 87 of the said Act must be satisfied. By referring to the order impugned, it is submitted that the Additional Chief Secretary by analysing the case put up by the petitioners and the objections raised by the respondents had come to the conclusion, which is reflected in the remarks column of Annexure-A to the said order. There is no challenge to such findings. In view thereof, no relief can be afforded to the petitioners. It is still further submitted that in order to be entitled to an exemption under Section 91 of the said Act, the consent of the Corporation is necessary. There is no challenge to such findings. In view thereof, no relief can be afforded to the petitioners. It is still further submitted that in order to be entitled to an exemption under Section 91 of the said Act, the consent of the Corporation is necessary. Admittedly, in this case, the Corporation has not consented and as such, no such exemption can be granted. Referring to the representations made by the employees of the petitioners, it is submitted that there is no scope to opt out of the scheme even by consent, as such the same are of no assistance. In the facts noted hereinabove, no interference is called for. 14. Mr. Banerjee, learned advocate representing the respondent nos. 3 and 4, adopts the submission made by Mr. Kishore Dutta, learned Senior Advocate representing the respondent nos. 1 and 2. 15. Mr. Chattopadhyay, in reply, places paragraphs 22 and 23 of the writ petition to identify the prejudice caused to the petitioners. He submits that the Additional Chief Secretary while observing that the petitioner no.1 is not entitled to exemption under Section 91 of the said Act, since, the conditions set forth in the first proviso to Section 87 of the said Act does not stand satisfied, has overlooked the previous exemptions granted to the petitioner no.1. He submits that no greater prejudice can be caused than to decide a case without giving opportunity to defend. Admittedly, the written objection filed by the Corporation was not made over to the petitioners. Supply of such written objection along with copy of the order is no substitute for supply of such objection in course of hearing, for the petitioners to respond to the same. The aforesaid has caused irreparable prejudice to the petitioners, and the same has rendered the order bad. The judgments relied on by the State respondents do not concern non-supply of documents and objections taken into consideration by the Authority/Tribunal without making available copies thereof, or making the contents thereof, known to the other party. The aforesaid judgments do not assist the State respondents. It is further submitted that the order impugned has not been passed having due regard to the order dated 9th February, 2023 and as such the same cannot be sustained and should be set aside with a further direction upon the State respondents to rehear the case. 16. The aforesaid judgments do not assist the State respondents. It is further submitted that the order impugned has not been passed having due regard to the order dated 9th February, 2023 and as such the same cannot be sustained and should be set aside with a further direction upon the State respondents to rehear the case. 16. Heard the learned advocates appearing for the respective parties and considered the materials on record. 17. From the pleadings and the arguments narrated hereinabove, the following issues arise : a. Whether, non-supply of the objection filed by the Corporation to the petitioners constitutes violation of principles of natural justice, so as to render the order impugned as bad? b. Whether, the petitioners had suffered any prejudice by reasons of non-supply of the copy of the objection relied by the Additional Chief Secretary? c. Whether, supply of the objection along with the final order constitutes compliance with the rules of natural justice for the petitioners to challenge the said order before this Court? d. Whether, the order impugned can be or ought to be set aside? 18. As noted above, the decision which is impugned in the present petition has been passed pursuant to the order dated 9th February, 2023 whereby, the Principal Secretary, Department of Labour, was directed to consider the issue, as to whether the petitioner no.1 is entitled to exemption under Section 88 read with Section 91 of the said Act, having regard to the observation made in the order dated 1st November, 2012 and the order dated 8th June, 2022, and if the petitioner no.1 was found eligible for grant of exemption under Section 88 read with Section 91 of the said Act, to grant the same. 19. It appears that pursuant to the aforesaid order, the Additional Chief Secretary, Labour Department, Government of West Bengal, had considered the matter. Notwithstanding, it was for the Principal Secretary, Labour Department to consider such an issue, he did not decide the same. No clarification was, however, sought for by the State-respondents as to whether the matter can be examined by the Additional Chief Secretary, Labour Department. 20. Although, the petitioners were invited for a meeting on 12th April, 2023 and though, an objection was filed by the Corporation, copy of such objection was not made over to the petitioners despite request from the petitioner no.2. 20. Although, the petitioners were invited for a meeting on 12th April, 2023 and though, an objection was filed by the Corporation, copy of such objection was not made over to the petitioners despite request from the petitioner no.2. It has been stated on oath by the petitioners in paragraph 21 of the petition that on the prayer being made by the petitioners for a copy of the objection, the Additional Chief Secretary, Labour Department, Government of West Bengal had suggested the petitioners to apply for the said document in writing. Interestingly, although, the petitioner no.2 by letter dated 25th April, 2023 had sought for a copy of the objection filed by the Corporation, the petitioners were not favoured with the same. 21. Admittedly, the order dated 9th June, 2023 proceeds to reject the petitioners’ claim for exemption by not only taking note of the objection filed by the Corporation but by analysing the contents thereof, and by holding that the petitioner no.1 is not entitled to exemption. Although, affidavit in opposition had been filed by the respondent nos.1 and 2, Mr. Dutta, learned senior advocate representing the aforesaid respondents has confirmed the factum of non-supply of objection/report filed by the Corporation to the petitioners. He has, however, contended that mere non-supply of the aforesaid document is not sufficient to vitiate the order as the petitioners have failed to identify the prejudice caused. It is claimed that in the writ petition, the petitioners have also not contested the findings in the order despite being aware of the contents of objection, thereby, accepting the same. He has also placed judicial precedents noted above to contend that mere non-supply of the report is not sufficient to vitiate the order. 22. Unfortunately, none of the authorities relied on, assist the respondents. In the case of Natwar Singh (supra) the issue involved was whether a noticee served with a show-cause notice under Rule 4(1) of the Foreign Exchange Management (Adjudication Proceedings and Appeal) Rules, 2000, is entitled to demand all documents in the possession of the adjudicating authority, including documents upon which no reliance has been placed to issue the show-cause notice. It is in response to such an issue that the Hon’ble Supreme Court had observed that even in the application of doctrine of fair play, there must be flexibility. It is in response to such an issue that the Hon’ble Supreme Court had observed that even in the application of doctrine of fair play, there must be flexibility. There must have been caused some real prejudice to the complainant as there can be no such thing as a merely technical infringement of natural justice. 23. The judgment delivered in the case of Sohan Lal Gupta (supra) deals with the question as what would constitute a reasonable notice by an arbitrator. It is while answering such a question, the Hon’ble Supreme Court observed that a party in a given case should not only be required to show that he did not have proper notice resulting in violation of principal of natural justice but also to show that he was seriously prejudice thereby. The case of Chairman, State Bank of India (supra) pertains to quashing of a disciplinary proceeding on the ground of violation of a particular clause of the Bank of Cochin Service Code. In none of the aforesaid cases the Hon’ble Supreme Court was concerned with non-supply of objections, the consideration whereof, resulted in rejection of petitioners’ claim. In my view, a party cannot be subjected to more prejudice than its claim being dismissed on consideration of certain objections, without affording the party an opportunity to explain the same. The manner in which the order impugned has been passed by placing reliance on an objection filed by the Corporation without making the same available to the petitioners and the objections forming the basis of the order itself, shocks the conscience of the Court. 24. Needless to note that the aforesaid order is in sharp contrast to the repeated previous directions issued by the appropriate Government upholding the entitlement of the petitioner no.1 for grant of exemption. From the tenor of the order, it appears that the Additional Chief Secretary by undermining the previous orders issued by the appropriate Government from time to time, has come to a conclusion based on the aforesaid objections filed by the Corporation that the employees of the petitioner no.1’s establishment are not receiving benefits substantially similar or superior to the benefits provided by the Corporation. The finding, that the way the activities of the petitioner no.1’s establishment is being administered do not justify the claim for exemption, is also in contrast to the repeated observations of the appropriate Government that the activities of the establishment justify grant of exemption. It is not only strange but startling to note that the Additional Chief Secretary had proceeded to adjudicate upon the issue although, this Court had never empowered the Additional Chief Secretary to adjudicate the same. 25. All issues noted above are thus, decided in favour of the petitioners and against the respondents. For reasons as aforesaid, the order impugned cannot be sustained and the same is set aside and quashed. This Court accordingly directs the Principal Secretary, Department of Labour, Government of West Bengal to take a fresh decision as regards the grant of exemption to the petitioner no.1, strictly in terms of the order dated 9th February, 2023 passed by this Court, by following the principles of natural justice and the observations made herein within a period of eight weeks from the date of communication of this order. It is made clear that till a fresh order is passed, no coercive steps shall be taken against the petitioners. 26. Further taking note of the manner in which the matter has been decided, the Additional Chief Secretary, who had passed the order impugned shall not be part of the aforesaid decision making process. 27. With the above observations/directions, the writ petition being No. WPO 1484 of 2023 stands disposed of. 28. There shall be no order as to costs. 29. Urgent Photostat certified copy of this order, if applied for, be made available to the parties on priority basis upon compliance of all formalities.