IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.N.KRISHNAN THURSDAY, THE 31ST JULY 2008 / 9TH SRAVANA 1930 Ins.APP.No. 12 of 2003(A) ------------------------------------ I.C. NO.2/1999 OF ESI COURT,IDUKKI. .................... APPELLANTS/ OPPOSITE PARTIES: --------------------------------------------------- 1. THE REGIONAL DIRECTOR, E.S.I.CORPORATION, PANCHA DEEP BHAVAN, NORTH SWARAJ ROUND, THRISSUR-20. 2. THE RECOVERY OFFICER, E.S.I.CORPORATION, THRISSUR-20. BY ADV. SRI.P.SANKARANKUTTY NAIR. RESPONDENT/ APPLICANT: ---------------------------------------- K.R.MURALEEDHARAN, KUNNUMPURATHUVEEDU, THANNEERUMUKKAM SOUTH CHERTHALA, ALAPPUZHA. BY ADV. SRI. P.R. VENKATESH. THIS INSURANCE APPEALS HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 31/07/2008,THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: prv. M.N.KRISHNAN, J ===================== INAP No.12 OF 2003 ===================== Dated this the 31st day of July 2008 JUDGMENT This appeal is preferred against the order of the Employees' Insurance Court, Idukki in I.C.No. 2 of 1999, whereby the court allowed the application filed by Sri.K.R.Muraleedharan. The brief facts would reveal that the applicant was the licensee of toddy shop No.22. The applicant would contend that it was his father K.T.Ramakrishnan, who was conducting the toddy shop and the employees were engaged by him and therefore Sri,Ramakrishnan was the employer and the others were the employees. There is default in paying E.S.I contribution and it was paid belatedly and so proceedings were initiated under Section 85 B of the Act for recovery of damages. The Inspector attached to the Corporation also had submitted a report to the effect that though the applicant before the court below was the son of Sri.Ramakrishnan, the employees were engaged only by Sri.Ramakrishnan and so the employer-employee relationship was between him and the workers. It appears that but for the fact that he is a son and a licensee all other points would indicate that Sri.Ramakrishnan INAP 12/2003 -:2:- was the employer. Now the Corporation has initiated recovery proceedings for damages against the son of Ramakrishnan, who is not the employer. Section 85B mandates that such proceedings can only be initiated against the employer. Therefore the court below found that being not an employer no action can be initiated against the applicant therein. I find that the said approach of the court is in conformity with law and the order passed also is proper and therefore it does not call for any interference. Therefore the appeal fails and the same is dismissed. M.N.KRISHNAN, JUDGE Cdp/-