IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.N.KRISHNAN MONDAY, THE 22ND FEBRUARY 2010 / 3RD PHALGUNA 1931 Ins.APP.No. 28 of 2008() ------------------------ IC.43/2005 of EMPLOYEES INSURANCE COURT, ALAPPUZHA .................... APPELLANT(S): RESPONDENT: ------------------------------------------------ THE DEPUTY DIRECTOR, ESI, CORPORATION PANCHADEEP BHAVAN, N.S.ROUND, THRISSUR-20. BY ADV. MR.P.SANKARANKUTTY NAIR RESPONDENT(S): APPELLANT: ----------------------------------------------- ST.GEORGE TIMBER INDUSTRIES, VENGOLA PO., M.C.ROAD,PERUMBAVOOR REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING PARTNER, MR.C.P.ISSAC BY ADV. MR.V.RAJENDRAN (PERUMBAVOOR) THIS INSURANCE APPEALS HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 22/02/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: Kss M.N. KRISHNAN, J. = = = = = = = = = = = = = = INS.APPEAL NO. 28 OF 2008 = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = Dated this the 22nd day of February, 2010. J U D G M E N T This appeal is preferred against the order of the Employees Insurance Court, Alappuzha in I.C.43/05. The dispute is with respect to the coverage of the establishment. According to the applicant it has never employed more than six persons whereas according to the Corporation there were 10 persons plus power which would attract coverage under the provisions of the Act. The learned E.I.Court has discussed the matter in detail. The establishment had produced muster rolls and also register of wages which would indicate that the employees were only six persons and not more. These documents are kept in the ordinary course of business. Therefore the documents which are required to be maintained statutorily does not show employment of more than six persons at any point of time in the establishment. INS.APPEAL NO. 28 OF 2008 -:2:- 2. The E.S.I.Corporation official would depose that when he visited the establishment in October, 2000 he found a note book wherein the names of 10 persons were incorporated. When he visited the premises later on 13.11.2000 he would admit that there were only six persons employed in the establishment. So the whole thing depends upon the endorsements in the notebook or the contents of the documents produced by the Corporation. First of all it is not a document which is kept in the ordinary course of business. Secondly that document does not contain the details of the employees, the nature of employment or the wages and therefore it can be at the most said to be a document for document sake whereas the statutorily required document only establishes the employment of six persons. So factually the matter is found in favour of the establishment and there is no mistake committed by the E.I.Court and thus there is neither any substantial question of law involved in the matter nor there is any perverse finding with respect to the factual material. Therefore there INS.APPEAL NO. 28 OF 2008 -:3:- is no substantial question of law involved and the appeal does not warrant entertainment. Therefore the appeal is dismissed. M.N. KRISHNAN, JUDGE. ul/-