IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE J.B.KOSHY & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.N.RAVINDRAN WEDNESDAY, THE 25TH JUNE 2008 / 4TH ASHADHA 1930 MFA.No. 1285 of 2001(B) ---------------------------------- EIC.59/1993 of EMPLOYEES INSURANCE COURT, KOZHIKODE .................... APPELLANT/APPLICANT ----------------------------------- M/S. ROCKY ENGINEERING AND AUTOMOBILES, DOOR NO.C.P.X/491 (SSI UNIT), P.T.ROAD, VADAKARA, REP. BY ITS PARTNER CHERUVATH THAZHA KUNIYIL SURENDRAN BY ADV. SRI.B.KRISHNAN SRI.MURALIDHARAN SRI.PARTHASARATHY RESPONDENT/RESPONDENT ----------------------------------------- THE REGIONAL DIRECTOR, E.S.I. CORPORATION, THRISSUR. BY ADV. SRI.TPM.IBRAHIM KHAN THIS MISC. FIRST APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 25/06/2008, ALONG WITH MFA NO. 1287 OF 2001, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: ORDER ON C.M.P.NO.8738/2001 IN M.F.A. NO.1285/2001 DISMISSED 25/06/2008. SD/- J.B.KOSHY, JUDGE SD/- P.N.RAVINDRAN, JUDGE // TRUE COPY // Rs/ J.B.KOSHY & P.N.RAVINDRAN, JJ. -------------------------------------- M.F.A.Nos.1285 & 1287 OF 2001 ------------------------------------- Dated 25th June, 2008 JUDGMENT Koshy,J . Appellant in these cases, aggrieved by the action of the Employees' State Insurance Corporation in clubbing two units together and extending coverage, approached the Employees' Insurance Court. It is the contention of the appellant that there are two independent firms. One was constituted by Ext.P1 partnership deed dated 2.9.1992 and the other was constituted by Ext.P2 partnership deed dated 5.9.1992. One firm is doing lathe works and workshop activities of four wheelers. The other firm is a service centre of Bajaj Automobiles and conducting sale of spare parts of Bajaj vehicles and the employees in that firm are approved trained workers from Bajaj Auto Limited. Even though name of the firms is `Rocky Engineering and Automobiles' and partners are the same, firms are doing independent business, there is no connection with each other. Both maintain separate muster rolls. Ext.P3 muster roll is of the firm which is doing engineering works and Exts.P5 and P6 are of the other firm. Further, separate accounts and separate ledgers are there for the Engineering workshop. Ext.P8 is the factory licence issued to the Engineering workshop. The activities are conducted in two buildings MFA.1285 & 1287/2001 2 even though in the same compound. Separate panchayat licence, separate building tax etc. are there. To support the arguments, Exts.P1 to P27 were produced. E.I. Court did not agree with the same on the ground that there is unity of ownership. Unity of ownership of the establishments is only one of the matters to be looked into. The questions whether one unit can be treated as part of the other unit, whether one establishment will exist without the other establishment, whether employees are transferable from one establishment to other, whether separate partnerships are there, whether the activities carried on in both firms are one and the same, whether separate accounts are maintained etc. have to be considered. We are of the opinion that all the documents filed by the appellant have to be looked into. That was not considered. We are of the opinion that the matter requires more evidence and detailed consideration. In the above circumstances, we set aside the impugned order and remand the matter for fresh consideration. Parties shall appear before the E.I. Court on 6.8.2008. Both appeals are allowed by way of remand. J.B.KOSHY JUDGE P.N.RAVINDRAN JUDGE tks