IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.N.KRISHNAN FRIDAY, THE 11TH JULY 2008 / 20TH ASHADHA 1930 Ins.APP.No. 34 of 2005() ------------------------------------- (AGAINST THE ORDER IN E I C NO.17 OF 2001DTD. 28/12/2004 OF THE E I COURT, KOZHIKODE) APPELLANTS:RESPONDENTS: ----------------------------------------------- 1. THE REGIONAL DIRECTOR, ESI CORPORATION, THRISSUR. 2. THE AUTHORISED OFFICER, ESI CORPORATION, THRISSUR. 3. THE RECOVERY OFFICER, ESI CORPORATION, THRISSUR. BY ADV. SMT.T.D.RAJALAKSHMY, SC, ESI CORPN. RESPONDENT:APPLICANT: ----------------------------------------- M/S.RAGHAM TEXTILES, THALASSERY, REPRESENTED BY ITS MG. PARTNER MR.N.HAMEED, NARANGAPURAM, THALASSERY. BY THIS INSURANCE APPEALS HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 11/07/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: Kss M.N. KRISHNAN, J. = = = = = = = = = = = = = = INS.APPEAL NO. 34 OF 2005 = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = Dated this the 11th day of July, 2008. J U D G M E N T Even the notice in the delay condonation petition has to be taken through paper publication and the question involved is that of limitation which is squarely covered by the decision of the Apex Court. Therefore the matter is disposed of as follows. 2. This appeal is preferred against the judgment of the Employees Insurance Court, Kozhikode in E.I.C.17/01. The applicant therein sought for a declaration that it is not liable to be covered under the ESI Act. The ESI Corporation resisted the claim. E.I. Court came to a conclusion that M/s Ragham Textile is liable to be covered under the ESI Act with effect from 28.6.88 independently and from 19.8.90 independently subject to the provisions of limitation. It is further held that D6 claim is not enforceable at all and D9 claim is enforceable with effect from 26.2.96. It is also declared that Ext.D11 claim is enforceable with effect from Ins. Appeal 34 OF 2005 -:2:- 26.2.96 and D13 claim is unenforceable. The enforceability is on the basis of the interpretation given by this Court to the proviso to S.77(1A)(b) of the ESI Act. In ESI Corporation v. Excel Glasses Ltd. (2003 (3) KLT 42) a Full Bench of this Court held that ESI Corporation is not entitled to proceed for any claim which is raised beyond a period of five years. But the Apex Court has reversed that decision in the decision reported in E.S.I. Corporation v. Santhakumar (2007 (1) KLT 133 (SC). The Apex Court was considering the impact of Section 77(1A)(b) and S.45A of the ESI Act. The Apex Court held that the limitation will arise only with respect to the claim made by the ESI Corporation before the Court and not for any proceeding initiated by it against others. In the light of that principle, the Bench decision of this Court was reversed by the Apex Court. Or in other words, as the law stands today there is no question of limitation. So the matter requires fresh consideration for the reason that the question of rejection of the claim on the ground of limitation cannot be sustained and therefore the amount has to be determined. Ins. Appeal 34 OF 2005 -:3:- In the result the appeal is allowed and the finding on the question of limitation is set aside. The ESI Corporation is directed to give a fresh notice in the form of remainder and if the other side appears hear them, determine the amount after consideration of any objections and proceed to realise it in accordance with law. The appeal is disposed of as above. M.N. KRISHNAN, JUDGE. ul/-