Allowed

Employees State Insurance Corporation v. M/S.Bagsvig Vyttila

Kerala HC5 Jun 2007WA/370/2005

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court allowed the writ appeal and set aside the impugned judgment solely because a Supreme Court decision held that proceedings were not barred by limitation. The court reserved the question of Regulation 31Cs validity for appropriate proceedings.

What did the court decide?

The writ appeal allowed; impugned judgment set aside; liberty reserved to challenge Regulation 31C.

Employees State Insurance Corporation Vs M/S.Bagsvig… — Service and Employment | Kerala HC (2007)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT:-

¶3

THE HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR.H.L.DATTU &

¶4

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.T.SANKARAN

¶5

TUESDAY, THE 5TH JUNE 2007 / 15TH JYAISHTA 1929

¶6

W.A.No.370 of 2005(B)

¶7

¶8

AGAINST THE JUDGEMENT IN O.P.NO.17204/1994 DATED 27/01/2004

¶9

APPELLANTS: RESPONDENTS 1 TO 3 IN THE ORIGINAL PETITION:-

¶10

¶11

EMPLOYEES STATE INSURANCE CORPORATION, REPRESENTED BY ITS DIRECTOR GENERAL, E.S.I. CORPORATION, NEW DELHI.

¶12

THE REGIONAL DIRECTOR, REGIONAL OFFICE, E.S.I. CORPORATION, PANCHADEEP BHAVAN, THRISSUR-20.

¶13

THE RECOVERY OFFICER, E.S.I. CORPORATION, PANCHADEEP BHAVAN, THRISSUR-20.

¶14

BY STANDING COUNSEL SRI.T.P.M.IBRAHIM KHAN.

¶15

RESPONDENTS: PETITIONER & 4TH RESPONDENT IN THE O.P:-

¶16

¶17

M/S. BAGSVIG VYTTILA, COCHIN-19, REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR MR.C.R.VIRAN, M/S. BAGSVIG, VYTTILA, COCHIN-19.

¶18

UNION OF INDIA.

¶19

R1 BY ADV. SRI.ABRAHAM JOHN

¶20

R2 BY ADDL.C.G.S.C. SRI.C.A.MAJEED.

¶21

THIS WRIT APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 05/06/2007, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:-

¶22

H.L.Dattu,C.J. & K.T.Sankaran,J.

¶23

---------------------------------------------- W.A.No.370 of 2005

¶24

---------------------------------------------Dated, this the 5^th day of June, 2007

¶25

JUDGMENT

¶26

K.T.Sankaran,J.

¶27

In view of the decision of the Supreme Court reported in Employees State Insurance Corporation v. Santhakumar [2007 (1) KLT 133 (SC)], the contention that the proceedings are barred by limitation would not survive. The decision of the Full Bench of this Court in E.S.I. Corporation v. Excel Glasses Ltd . [2003 (3) KLT 42 (FB)] is no longer good law in view of the Supreme Court decision. Therefore, the Writ Appeal is liable to be allowed on that ground and the writ petition is liable to be dismissed.

¶28

The learned counsel for the 1^st respondent submits that the writ petitioner had challenged the vires of Regulation 31C of the Employees' State Insurance (General) Regulations, 1950 and the learned Single Judge has not decided that point and confined the decision to the question of limitation. Now having held that the proceedings are not barred by limitation in view of the decision of the Supreme Court, the question whether Regulation 31C is ultra vires or not assumes importance and it is relevant for decision. At this distance of time, we do not think, the writ petitioner should be allowed to proceed with the writ petition for the said relief.

¶29

Accordingly, the Writ Appeal is allowed and the impugned judgment is set aside. Liberty is reserved to the 1^st respondent-writ petitioner, if he so desires, to challenge Regulation 31C in appropriate proceedings.

H.L.Dattu

Chief Justice

K.T.Sankaran Judge

vku/-

Employees State Insurance Corporation v. M/S.Bagsvig Vyttila

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Employees State Insurance Corporation v. M/S.Bagsvig Vyttila

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

B.Sreekumaran Nair Vs M.Blaakrishnan Nair

G.Rajendran Vs Dr.v.M.Gopala Menon

Dr.Francis Mathew Vs Dominic Chavara

P.V. Radhakrishnan Vs E.Damodharan Potti

Preethy K.R. & Anr. Vs Sivaja Das

S.Krishna Pillai Vs K.S.R.T.C.