- (1.) THE petitioner, in this writ petition, has prayed for quashing the order passed by the Joint Secretary to the Government, Labour, Employment and Training Department, Government of Jharkhand, contained in Order No.95 dated 18.1.2012 whereby final order has been passed on the application of the petitioner, refusing to grant exemption from operation of Employees State Insurance Act, 1948.
(2.) THE said order has been assailed on number of grounds. However, when this writ petition is taken up for hearing, Mr. Indrajit Sinha, learned counsel, appearing on behalf of the petitioner, submitted that the impugned order has been passed by an authority/officer who has not heard the petitioner and the same is null and void. Learned counsel submitted that from the materials on record it would be evident that the matter was heard by the Principal Secretary to the Government, Labour, Employment & Training Department, but the final order has been passed by the Joint Secretary to the Government, Labour, Employment & Training Department. The officer who heard the parties did not pass the order, rather the order has been passed by some other officer who did not hear the parties. There is, thus, blatant violation of the principle of natural justice and the order being a nullity is liable to be quashed. Replying to the said submissions of the petitioner, learned counsel appearing on behalf of Respondent Nos.2 to 4 contended that only for the reason that the officer who has passed the order did not hear the parties does not render the order a nullity. There are circumstances under which the orders may be passed by the authority, who did not hear the parties. If no prejudice is caused to any party, the said order cannot be said to be illegal. Learned counsel referred to and relied upon the decisions of the Supreme Court in Aligarh Muslim University & Ors. Vs. Mansoor Ali Khan [AIR 2000 SC 2783] and also the decision in Ossein and Gelatine Manufacturers' Association of India Vs. Modi Alkalies and Chemicals Ltd. & Anr. [AIR 1990 SC 1744].
(3.) LEARNED J.C. to A.A.G. appearing on behalf of Respondent No.1, argued that in view of the said decisions of the Supreme Court, the order cannot be held to be bad only because the same has been passed by the officer, who has not heard the petitioner. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the facts and materials on record.;