The High Court dismissed the appeal, set aside the Single Judge's order, and restored the Insurance Case on the appellant depositing 50% of the demand and Rs. 5,000 costs to the respondents within one week.
The application shall stand restored on payment of 50% of demand and Rs.5,000 costs within one week.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE A.M.SHAFFIQUE
&
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE GOPINATH P.
WEDNESDAY, THE 01ST DAY OF JULY 2020 / 10TH ASHADHA, 1942
WA.No.307 OF 2020
AGAINST THE JUDGMENT DATED 27-11-2019 IN WP(C) 16430/2017(C) OF HIGH COURT OF KERALA
APPELLANT/PETITIONER:
RAVEENDRAN
AGED 53 YEARS, S/O KRISHNAN EZHUTHASSAN, PROPRIETOR, M/S KRISHNA PETRO PARK, MUNDOOR, CHOREKKATTIL VALAPPIL HOUSE, PERAMANGALAM.P.O THRISSUR DISTRICT-680545.
BY ADV. SRI.G.SREEKUMAR (CHELUR)
RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS:
REGIONAL OFFICE, PANCHADWEEP BHAVAN, ROUND NORTH, THRISSUR,
REPRESENTED BY ITS REGIONAL HEAD, PANCHADWEEP, ROUND NORTH, THRISSUR DISTRICT-680020.
THIS WRIT APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 01.07.2020, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
W.A. No.307/2020
-2-
A.M. SHAFFIQUE, J. & GOPINATH P., J.
W.A. No. 307 OF 2020
DATED THIS THE 1st DAY OF JULY, 2020
J U D G M E N T
Shaffique, J:
This writ appeal has been filed by the petitioner in W.P (C) No.16430/2017 challenging the judgment of the learned Single Judge by which the writ petition was dismissed. The writ petition was filed inter alia challenging Exts.P9 & P10 and for a direction to the Employees Insurance Court (Industrial Tribunal), Thrissur to consider Insurance Case No.215/2016 and to restore the same to file on payment of statutory deposit.
W.A. No.307/2020 -3-
appellant sought for one more opportunity to deposit the amount. The request was opposed by the learned counsel for ESI Corporation, Sri. T.V. Ajayakumar inter alia contending that the Corporation had been dragged into this case and there was deliberate inaction on the part of the petitioner to remit 15% of the demand. Therefore there is no reason to show any indulgence on the appellant at this point of time.
W.A. No.307/2020
-4-
Rs.5,000/-. There is negligence on the part of the appellant in not remitting the said amount to maintain the application. Therefore it is only appropriate that the petitioner / appellant be called upon to pay cost as well, in order to maintain the application. We are of the view that payment of cost of Rs.5,000/- to the respondents will be sufficient. Accordingly this appeal is disposed of as under:
Sd/-
A.M.SHAFFIQUE
JUDGE
Sd/-
GOPINATH P.
JUDGE
AMG
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the appellant is entitled to an opportunity to deposit the required amount to restore the application.
Whether the appellant should be ordered to pay costs for negligence in not remitting the demand earlier.
1 provisions across 1 enactments
RAVEENDRAN
THE EMPLOYEES STATE INSURANCE
THE ASSISTANT DIRECTOR, INSPECTION, REGIONAL OFFICE, E S I CORPORATION, THRISSUR
A.M.SHAFFIQUE
GOPINATH P.
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
