IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.N.KRISHNAN FRIDAY, THE 7TH NOVEMBER 2008 / 16TH KARTHIKA 1930 Ins.APP.No. 38 of 2007() ------------------------ IC.36/2005 of E. I COURT, PALAKKAD .................... APPELLANTS/OPPOSITE PARTIES: ---------------------------------------------------- 1. THE DEPUTY DIRECTOR, EMPLOYEES STATE INSURANCE CORPORATION, PANCHADEEP BHAVAN, N.S. ROUND, THRISSUR-20. 2. THE RECOVERY OFFICER, EMPLOYEES' STATE INSURANCE CORPORATION, PANCHADEEP BHAVAN, THRISSUR. BY ADV. SRI.T.V.AJAYAKUMAR, SC, ESI CORPN. RESPONDENT(S): APPLICANT: ----------------------------------------------- BPL TELECOM PVT. LIMITED, SYSTEM HOUSE, PALAKKAD-678 007, REPRESENTED BY ITS COMPANY SECRETARY, SRI.D.KRISHNAN. ADV. SRI.E.K.NANDAKUMAR FOR R1 SRI.A.K.JAYASANKAR NAMBIAR FOR R1 SRI.K.JOHN MATHAI FOR R1 SRI.P.BENNY THOMAS FOR R1 SRI.ANIL D. NAIR FOR R1 THIS INSURANCE APPEALS HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 07/11/2008,THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: KSS M.N. KRISHNAN, J ------------------------------ INSURANCE APPEAL.NO. 38 OF 2007 ---------------------------------------- Dated this the 7th day of November, 2008 JUDGMENT This appeal is preferred against the Order of the Employees' Insurance Court, Palakkad in I.C.No. 36/2005. The applicant before the said Court moved the application challenging the demand of interest for wages for the period from 1995-1999. The Employees' Insurance Court held that the admitted amount was paid and there was a dispute which was resolved only subsequently and therefore interest could not be claimed for the contribution. A Division Bench of this Court in the decision reported in Cannanore Drug Lines v. E.S.I Corporation [2007(1) KLT 880] considered this aspect and held: “The bonafide impression of the appellant that his establishment was not covered under the provisions of the E.S.I. Act or the pendency of a dispute before the E.S.I Court regarding the appellant's liability to pay E.S.I contribution cannot be a valid ground for exempting the appellant from paying interest in terms of S. 39(5)(a) and Regulation 31A. When the statute does not provide for any such exemption the respondent cannot exclude the amount of interest from the demand made against the appellant.” So it is clearly laid down in the decision that there is no discretionary jurisdiction left with the Corporation to exclude or exempt any person paying the interest when it has become due. Therefore the order passed by the E.I Court is incorrect and liable to be set aside. The interest had to be paid from the date when it has become due with grace period of 21 days. In order to fix the correct amount, if there is any dispute regarding the calculation of the correctness of the amount that may be heard by ESI Corporation and then proceedings may be initiated to realise the amount. The respondents herein can file a statement which according to them is the correct amount due within a period of one month. Appeal is disposed of accordingly. M.N. KRISHNAN, JUDGE vkm