Remanded

Employees State Insurance Corporation v. P.G.Sivan

Kerala HC5 Feb 2016Ins.APP/6/2015

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This Insurance Appeal was preferred by the Corporation against E.I. Court orders that denied contribution determinations as statute-barred. Relying on a prior precedent that the five-year bar does not apply to court-ordered reassessments, this Court set aside the impugned orders and remitted the matters for fresh disposal, while declining to adjudicate the time-barredness question directly.

What did the court decide?

Impugned orders set aside; matters remitted to the E.I. Court for fresh consideration on merits.

Employees State Insurance Corporation Vs P.G.Sivan — Service and Employment | Kerala HC (2016)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT:

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.B.SURESH KUMAR

¶4

FRIDAY, THE 5TH DAY OF FEBRUARY 2016/16TH MAGHA, 1937

¶5

Ins.APP.No. 6 of 2015 ()

¶6

AGAINST THE JUDGMENT IN IC.NO. 71/2013 OF EMPLOYEES' INSURANCE COURT, ALAPPUZHA DATED 15-01-2015

¶7

APPELLANT/OPPOSITE PARTY :

¶8

EMPLOYEES STATE INSURANCE CORPORATION SUB REGIONAL OFFICE (ERNAKULAM), KALOOR KOCHI-17, REPRESENTED BY ITS DEPUTY DIRECTOR

¶9

BY ADV. SRI.K.SANDESH RAJA

¶10

RESPONDENT/APPLICANT:

¶11

1. P.G.SIVAN ANITHA BHAVAN,

¶12

KARIKKAMURI, COCHIN-11.

¶13

2. LALITHA RAMAKRISHNAN W/O.LATE K.S.RAMAKRISHNAN

¶14

ANITHA BHAVAN, KARIKKAMURI ERNAKULAM, COCHIN-11.

¶15

R1 & R2 BY ADV. SRI. A.V. XAVIER

¶16

THIS INSURANCE APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 05-02-2016, ALONG WITH INS.APPEAL NO. 7/2015 & CONNECTED CASES, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶17

¶18

P.B.SURESH KUMAR, J.

¶19

= = = = = = = = = = = = = = =

¶20

Ins.Appeal Nos.6, 7, 8, 9, 10,

¶21

11, 12 & 18 of 2015.

¶22

= = = = = = = = = = = = = = =

¶23

Dated this the 5^th day of February, 2016.

¶24

J U D G M E N T

¶25

These appeals are preferred by the Employees' State Insurance Corporation ('the Corporation' for short), challenging the decisions rendered by the Employees' Insurance Court ('the E.I.Court' for short) on applications filed under Section 75 of the Employees' State Insurance Act ('the Act' for short). The impugned orders indicate that the applications before the E.I.Court were applications challenging the determination of contributions made by the Corporation under Section 45A of the Act. The impugned orders also indicate that the same are passed by the E.I.Court on the ground that the orders impugned in the applications were barred by the second proviso to Section 45A of the Act. The second proviso to Section 45A of the

¶26

Ins.Appeal Nos.6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12 & 18 of 2015.

¶27

¶28

Act prohibits determination of contributions by the Corporation in respect of periods beyond five years from the date on which the contributions become payable. This Court in E.S.I.Corporation v. Lalitha Ramakrishnan (2015(4) KLT 366) held that the second proviso to Section 45A does not apply to re-assessments made by the Corporation pursuant to the orders passed by the E.I.Court or this Court, as the case may be. It is seen that all these cases are cases arising from applications challenging the reassessments made by the Corporation pursuant to orders passed by the courts. As such, in the light of the decision

¶29

of this Court in E.S.I.Corporation v. Lalitha Ramakrishnan (supra), the impugned orders are liable to be set aside and the matters are to be remitted to the E.I.Court for fresh disposal.

¶30

The learned counsel for the respondents contended that even if it is held that the second proviso does not apply to re-assessments, the Corporation is bound

¶31

¶32

Ins.Appeal Nos.6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12 & 18 of 2015.

¶33

to complete the determination process within a reasonable time as held by the Apex Court in Employees' State Insurance Corporation v. Santha Kumar (2007(1) KLT 133). I do not propose to adjudicate the said question in these appeals as it is a matter for the E.I. Court to examine while passing final orders in the applications, having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case.

¶34

In the result, the impugned orders are set aside and the matters are remitted to the E.I.Court for fresh consideration on merits. The parties are directed to appear before the E.I.Court on 17.3.2016.

¶35

Sd/P.B.SURESH KUMAR, (JUDGE)

¶36

P.B.SURESH KUMAR,

¶37

Kvs/-

¶38

// true copy //

¶39

PA TO JUDGE.

Employees State Insurance Corporation v. P.G.Sivan

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Employees State Insurance Corporation v. P.G.Sivan

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Baby Vs Alex Montiero @ Alexander Xavier

P.Muralidharan Vs the Regional Director

Anilkumar Vs Beena

Vaisakh(Minor) Vs New India Assurance Co.Ltd

Moidu Vs Pokkattil Jaleel

Shyju Antony Vs Nithin Babu and Others