IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PIUS C.KURIAKOSE & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.K.ABDUL REHIM TUESDAY, THE 19TH JANUARY 2010 / 29TH POUSHA 1931 Ins.APP.No.5 of 2010 ------------------------- I.A.398/09 IN IC.199/2009 of ESI COURT, PALAKKAD .................... APPELLANT/RESPONDENT ---------------------------- THE REGIONAL DIRECTOR, E.S.I.CORPORATION, PANCHADEEP BHAVAN, THRISSUR-20. BY ADV. SRI.THOMAS MATHEW NELLIMOOTTIL RESPONDENT(S): APPLICANT --------------------------------- M/S.JAMIYA NADWIYYA ARABIC COLLEGE, SALAH NAGAR, P.O.EDAVANNA, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT, REPRESENTED BY ITS CHAIRMAN,JAMIYA NADWIYYA TRUST, EDAVANNA AND KERALA NADUVATHIL MUHAHIDEEN, P.O.EDAVANNA. THIS INSURANCE APPEALS HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 19/01/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: PIUS C. KURIAKOSE & C. K. ABDUL REHIM, JJ. ------------------------------------------------ Ins. Appeal No.5 of 2010 ------------------------------------------------ Dated this the 19th day of January, 2010 JUDGMENT Pius C. Kuriakose, J We are not inclined to admit this appeal preferred by the E.S.I Corporation. Under challenge is an interlocutory order passed by the E.I Court on the basis of I.A.398/09 under which the appellant/ Corporation was directed to recall the notice which they had issued under 45-G of the ESI Act. The substantial question of law allegedly arising in this appeal inter alia are the following:- “1) When a Division Bench of this Hon'ble Court had already laid down that the educational institutions are covered by the provisions of the ESI Act, and that the judgment has become final, is it open to the respondent to contend that the Act is not applicable to the educational institutions? Ins. Appeal No.5 of 2010 -2- 2) When the ESI Act has been extended by notification to the area concerned, is it open to the respondent to contend that the act is not applicable to the institution?” 2. When this appeal came up for admission, it was with reference to the above questions of law that Mr.Thomas Mathew Nellimoottil, the learned counsel for the appellant addressed us mostly. The learned counsel drew our attention also to Section 75(2B) of the Employees State Insurance Act, 1948 and submitted that unless the applicant had deposited with the court 50% of the amount due from him as claimed by the Corporation, the appeal itself should not have been entertained. 3. As directed by us, the learned counsel for the appellant placed before us copies of the main application filed by the respondent as well as various Ins. Appeal No.5 of 2010 -3- other applications filed in the main application. It is seen on a perusal of the papers placed before us that apart from I.C.199/09, the respondent had also filed another application invoking the proviso to Section 75 (2B) of the Act praying that the suit be received on file dispensing with the pre-condition of depositing 50% of the compensation. It is clear to our mind that considering that application, the court below permitted the respondent to institute the proceedings without depositing 50% of the amount claimed by the respondent. After all, I.C.199/09 is pending before the Insurance Court. It is open to the appellant to raise the various questions of law suggested by them as arising in this case before the Insurance Court. 4. We dispose of this appeal directing the Employees Insurance Court, Palakkad to take up Ins. Appeal No.5 of 2010 -4- IC.199/09, invite objections from the appellant to IC.199/09 and to adjudicate the IC at the earliest and dispose of the IC finally without undue delay. It is needless to mention that the learned Insurance Court will give its verdict on all questions which arise on the basis of the objections filed by the appellant. PIUS C. KURIAKOSE JUDGE C. K. ABDUL REHIM JUDGE kns/-