IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.N.KRISHNAN MONDAY, THE 12TH OCTOBER 2009 / 20TH ASWINA 1931 MFA.No. 397 of 2003() ------------------------------- IC.42/1997 of EMPLOYEES INSURANCE COURT, KOLLAM .................... APPELLANT(S): OPPOSITE PARTY ---------------------------- ASSISTANT REGIONAL DIRECTOR, E.S.I.CORPORATION, PANCHADEEP BHAVAN, NORTH SWARAJ ROUND, THRISSUR. BY ADV. MR.T.V.AJAYAKUMAR RESPONDENT(S): APPLICANT ------------------------ 1. MOHAMMED KUNJU ABDUL KARIM, V.T.WIRECUT BRICKS, SOUTH MYLAKKAD, KOLLAM 2. DISTRICT COLLECTOR, KOLLAM. R1 BY ADV. MR.S.SANTHOSH KUMAR THIS MISC. FIRST APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 12/10/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: tss M.N.KRISHNAN, J. ........................................... M.F.A.NO.397 OF 2003 ............................................. Dated this the 12th day of October, 2009 J U D G M E N T This is an appeal preferred against the order of the Employees Insurance Court, Kollam in I.C.No.42/1997. The application filed by the applicant to declare that the establishment is not attracted for coverage under the Act was sustained and the petition was allowed. It is against that the Insurance Corporation has preferred this appeal. 2. Notice was ordered in this case. I heard the learned counsel for the insurance company to find out whether there is any substantial question of law involving in the matter. After referring to the discussion made in Paras 5 and 6, the insurance court has arrived at a decision that the documents available are not sufficient to establish that there were more than 10 employees. The Insurance Corporation mainly relied upon a list prepared by its officials wherein number of employees are shown as more than 10 and it only contained the name and signature : 2 : of the persons. As against this, the employer produced various documents and it never contained 10 or more number of persons. So, by evaluation of the documents the court found out that there is no sufficient evidence to hold that there were 10 or more than 10 employees. 3. It is merely a question of fact based on evidence and therefore I really find that there is no substantial question of law which warrants entertainment of the appeal. Therefore, the appeal lacks merit and it is dismissed. M.N.KRISHNAN, JUDGE cl : 3 : M.N.KRISHNAN, J. ........................................ M.F.A.NO.397 OF 2003 ........................................ 12th October, 2009 J U D G M E N T : 4 :