Remanded

The Regional Director v. M/S.Innovative Marine Foods Ltd.

Kerala HC10 Aug 2010Ins.APP/38/2004

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

High Court set aside the Employees Insurance Court order holding appeal barred by limitation. Court remitted matter for fresh consideration following Supreme Court precedent that limitation does not apply to adjudication proceedings under Section 45 A of Employees State Insurance Act.

What did the court decide?

Order of Employees Insurance Court set aside. Matter remitted to said court for fresh consideration.

The Regional Director Vs M/S.Innovative Marine Foods Ltd. — Banking and Recovery | Kerala HC (2010)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT :

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.N.KRISHNAN

¶4

TUESDAY, THE 10TH AUGUST 2010 / 19TH SRAVANA 1932

¶5

Ins.APP.No. 38 of 2004

¶6

-------------------------------[ I.C.NO.173/2001 OF EMPLOYEES INSURANCE COURT, ALAPPUZHA]

¶7

APPELLANTS/OPPO. PARTIES:

¶8

---------------------------------------------

¶9

1. THE REGIONAL DIRECTOR, E.S.I.CORPORATION, PANCHADEEP BHAVAN, SWARAJ ROUND NORTH, THRISSUR-20.

¶10

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

¶11

BY ADV. SRI.P.SANKARANKUTTY NAIR.

¶12

RESPONDENT/APPLICANT:

¶13

----------------------------------------

¶14

M/S.INNOVATIVE MARINE FOODS LTD. EZHUPUNNA P.O.- 688 548.

¶15

BY ADVS. SRI.E.K.NANDAKUMAR, SRI.A.K.JAYASANKAR NAMBIAR, SRI.K.JOHN MATHAI, SRI.P.BENNY THOMAS, SRI.P.GOPINATH.

¶16

THIS INSURANCE APPEALS HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 10/08/2010,THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶17

prv.

¶18

M.N. KRISHNAN, J.

¶19

Ins.A.NO.38 OF 2004

¶20

Dated this the 10^th day of August, 2010.

¶21

J U D G M E N T

¶22

This is an appeal preferred against the order of the Employees Insurance Court, Alappuzha in I.C.No.173/2001. The trial court allowed the petition and held that contention of the Employees State Insurance Corporation is barred by limitation. It was for the period between 1994-95 and 199798. The E.I Court found that contribution for the period up to 1995-96 is barred by limitation. It is against that decision, the appeal was preferred before this Court.

¶23

A learned Judge of this Court, in the light of the decision of a Full Bench in E.S.I Corporation v. Excel Glasses Ltd. (2003 (3) KLT 42), has held that limitation is available for the applicant and therefore dismissed the appeal of the Employees State Insurance Corporation. Against that, the E.S.I Corporation preferred Civil Appeal No.3152/2010 before the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India and the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the light of the decision in E.S.I Corporation v. C.C. Santhakuamr (2007 (1) SC 133) which

¶24

: 2 :

¶25

Ins.A.NO.38 OF 2004

¶26

reversed the Full Bench decision of the Kerala High Court had remitted the case back to this Court for disposal in accordance with law. Thereafter notice had been issued to both the parties.

¶27

Now the facts of the case would reveal that the Insurance Corporation wanted assessment for the period 1994-95 to 1999-2000 on omitted wages. The Full Bench of this Court held that there is a statutory bar to entertain claim of the Corporation after a period of 5 years. It was held by the Insurance Court that the claim up to 1996 is barred by limitation.

¶28

But in view of the reversal of the Full Bench decision of this Court by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Employees State Insurance Corporation v. C.C. Santhakumar (2007 (1) KLT 133 SC), I feel that the matter has to be again reconsidered by the Employees Insurance Court. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the decision made it clear that limitation is only applicable for a claim made by the Corporation and not to any other proceedings and it was further held that prescription of limitation has not been made applicable to

¶29

: 3 :

¶30

Ins.A.NO.38 OF 2004

¶31

adjudication proceedings under Section45 A of the Employees State Insurance Act. However, the Hon'ble Supreme Court also had held that the concept of reasonable time has to be read into the provision even though not specifically provided for. So by virtue of these decisions, the claim made by the Employees State Insurance Corporation cannot be thrown out on the ground of limitation and the matter requires reconsideration.

¶32

Therefore the order of the Employees State Insurance Court is set aside and the matter is remitted back to the said court for fresh consideration in the light of the enunciated principles laid in Employees State Insurance Corporation v. C.C. Santhakumar (2007(1) KLT 133 SC). The Employees State Insurance Court is directed to issue notice to both the parties fixing the date of appearance.

¶33

Disposed of accordingly.

¶34

M.N. KRISHNAN, JUDGE.

: 4 :

Ins.A.NO.38 OF 2004

: 5 :