Dismissed

The Regional Director v. Seenath.K.P

Kerala HC20 Jan 2016Ins.APP/76/2010

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

An insurance appeal against the Employees Insurance Court's decision declaring an establishment not covered under the ESI Act. The High Court held that the impugned order was based on a factual finding regarding the number of employees, which cannot be challenged in an appeal limited to substantial questions of law. The appeal was dismissed.

What did the court decide?

The appeal filed by the Regional Director of the E.S.I. Corporation was dismissed.

The Regional Director Vs Seenath.K.P — 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

WEDNESDAY, THE 20TH DAY OF JANUARY 2016/30TH POUSHA, 1937

¶5

Ins.APP.No. 76 of 2010

¶6

EIC 43/2006 EMPLOYEES' INSURANCE COURT, KOZHIKODE

¶7

APPELLANT/RESPONDENT:

¶8

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

¶9

BY ADV. SRI.THOMAS MATHEW NELLIMOOTTIL

¶10

RESPONDENT(S)/APPLICANT:

¶11

SEENATH.K.P., W/O.ABOOBACKER, HAZEENA MANZIL, NALLALAM POST, CALICUT-673001.

¶12

BY ADVS. SRI.K.M.FIROZ

¶13

SMT.M.SHAJNA

¶14

THIS INSURANCE APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 20-01-2016, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶15

¶16

P.B.SURESH KUMAR, J.

¶17

= = = = = = = = = = = = = Ins.Appeal.No.76 of 2010.

¶18

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

¶19

Dated this the 20^th day of January, 2016.

¶20

J U D G M E N T

¶21

The Regional Director of the Employees' State Insurance Corporation, hereinafter referred to as 'the Corporation' for short, has come up in this appeal challenging the decision of the Employees' Insurance Court, Kozhikode in E.I.C.No.43 of 2006.

¶22

The respondent is running a restaurant. There was an inspection in the premises of the restaurant of the respondent on 20.4.2005 by an Inspector attached to the Corporation. Thereupon, on the basis of the report submitted by the Inspector, a notice was issued by the Corporation to the respondent directing her to comply with the requirements of the Employees' State Insurance Act,

¶23

Ins.Appeal.No.76/2010.

¶24

¶25

hereinafter after referred to as 'the Act' for short. It was alleged in the said notice that the respondent was found employing 15 employees in her restaurant at the time of inspection. Thereafter, another notice was issued by the Corporation to the respondent directing her to pay a sum of Rs.53,760/- towards the contribution payable by her under the Act in respect of the employees in her restaurant. The notices referred to above have been challenged by the respondent before the Employees' Insurance Court on the ground mainly that she does not have 15 employees as alleged by the Corporation and that the report of the Inspector is incorrect. Ext.D2 is the report of the Inspector of the Corporation. Ext.D3 is the coverage notice issued initially by the Corporation to the respondent and Ext.D4 is the notice issued by the Corporation directing the respondent to pay contributions in respect of her employees under the Act. The Insurance Court, on an appraisal of the materials on record, found that Ext.D2 report of the

¶26

¶27

Ins.Appeal.No.76/2010.

¶28

Inspector of the Corporation is solely based on Ext.D1 letter obtained by the Inspector from a person called Moidu, allegedly employed by the respondent and that other than Ext.D1, there is nothing on record to indicate that the respondent had employed 15 employees in her establishment at the time of inspection. It was also found by the Employees' Insurance Court that the Corporation was duty bound to find out the identity of the persons employed by the respondent before initiating proceedings against her for coverage of establishment under the Act and in so far as the Corporation has not ascertained the identity of the persons employed by the respondent, the establishment of the respondent cannot be brought under the Act. Consequently, the Insurance Court declared that the establishment of the respondent is not covered under the Act. The Corporation is aggrieved by the said decision of the Insurance Court. Hence this appeal.

¶29

Heard the learned counsel for the appellant

¶30

Ins.Appeal.No.76/2010.

¶31

¶32

as also the learned counsel for the respondent.

¶33

The question arose for consideration in the proceedings before the Insurance Court was as to whether the case set up by the Corporation that the respondent had employed 15 employees on 20.4.2005 in her establishment is correct. On the basis of the materials on record, the Insurance Court found that the Corporation could not establish that the respondent was employing 15 employees on the date of inspection. Section 82(2) of the Act enables the Corporation to prefer an appeal against the decision of the Insurance Court only on a substantial question of law. The impugned decision is rendered by the Insurance Court solely based on the factual finding that the Corporation has not established that the respondent was employing 15 employees at the time of inspection. The factual finding rendered by the Insurance Court that the respondent has not engaged 15 employees in her establishment on the date of inspection cannot be challenged in an appeal preferred

¶34

Ins.Appeal.No.76/2010.

¶35

¶36

under Section 82(2) of the Act. In the said view of the matter, I do not find any merit in this appeal and the same is accordingly dismissed.

¶37

Sd/- P.B.SURESH KUMAR,

¶38

Kvs/-

¶39

// true copy //

¶40

PA TO JUDGE.

The Regional Director v. Seenath.K.P

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

The Regional Director v. Seenath.K.P

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

K.a.Balabhadran Vs K.Lakshmidevi

State of Kerala Vs Malathi

A.P.Sharbeena Vs Sajjad Saheer

E.S.I. Corporation Vs Chaya Industries Ltd.Nida Kanjikode

Moothoran @ Sreedharan Vs Ibrahim

Puthiya Purayil Narayani Vs Kunhimangalavan Cheriya Kunhiraman