IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.SURENDRA MOHAN THURSDAY, THE 17TH FEBRUARY 2011 / 28TH MAGHA 1932 WP(C).No. 25516 of 2004(K) ----------------------------------- PETITIONER: ------------------- GANGADHARAN EACHAYIL S/O. KUNHAMBU, THIMIRI VILLAGE, THERTHALLY, TALIPARAMBA, KANNUR DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI. SERGI JOSEPH THOMAS RESPONDENTS: ----------------------- 1. THE ASSISTANT DIRECTOR, REGIONAL OFFICE (KERALA), E.S.I. CORPORATION, THRISSUR -20. 2. THE RECOVERY OFFICER, OFFICE OF THE RECOVERY OFFICER, REGIONAL OFFICE (KERALA), E.S.I. CORPORATION, 'PANCHADEEP BHAVAN', NORTH SWARAJ ROUND, THRISSUR 20. 3. THE WELFARE FUND INSPECTOR, TODDY WORKERS WELFARE FUND BOARD, KANNUR. 4. THE ASSISTANT EXCISE COMMISSIONER, KANNUR. R1 & R2 BY STANDING COUNSEL ADV. SRI.P.SANKARANKUTTY NAIR R3 BY ADV. SRI. RINIL ANTO THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 17/02/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: WP(C).No. 25516 of 2004(K) ------------------------------------ APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS: EXT. P1 COPY OF THE NAME OF THE WORKERS AND DETAILS OF PAYMENT TOWARDS THE WELFARE FUND SCHEME FOR THE YEAR 01.04.84 TO 31.03.85 EXT. P2 COPY OF ORDER NO. XI.10.T.PB/15/84-85 DT. 26.05.86 OF THE 3RD RESPNDENT EXT. P3 COPY OF OBJECTION FILED IN RESPONSE TO THE NOTICE DT. 16.11.92 EXT. P4 COPY OF CERTIFICATE DT. 15.12.92 ISSUED BY THE WELFARE FUND INSPECTOR EXT. P5 COPY OF DEMAND NOTICE DT. 26.11.2003 EXT. P6 COPY OF OBJECTION ON 13.01.2004 EXT. P7 COPY OF COMMUNICATION NO. 54-3398/102/INS.I, DT. 10.08.2004 RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS: EXT. R1 COPY OF NOTICE DT. 03.02.86 NO. 54-3398-102-VII EXT. R1 (a) COPY OF NOTICE DT. 03.02.86, NO. 54-3398-102.VII EXT. R1 (b) COPY OF ACKNOWLEDGEMENT DT. 08.03.86 EXT. R1 (c) COPY OF NOTICE DT. 11.03.86, NO. 54-3398-102/INS-VII EXT. R1 (d) COPY OF NOTICE DT. 11.03.86, NO. 54-3398-102/INS.VII EXT. R1 (e) COPY OF LETTER DT. 21.04.86, NO. K. DIS-34867/86/G2 EXT. R1 (f) COPY OF LETTER DT. 21.04.86, NO. K. DIS.34868/86/G2 TRUE COPY P.A. TO JUDGE SMT K.SURENDRA MOHAN, J. ----------------------------------------- W.P.(C).No.25516 of 2004 ---------------------------------------- Dated this the 17th day of February, 2011 JUDGMENT The petitioner has filed this writ petition challenging Exts.P5 and P7 proceedings of the Employees' State Insurance Corporation in proceeding to cover Toddy shop No.15 (Manna of Taliparamba Range) for the period 1984-1985. The petitioner has disputed coverage of his Toddy Shop. Therefore, the petitioner has filed this writ petition challenging the action of the respondents 1 to 3 on various grounds. A counter affidavit has been filed by the first respondent disputing the various averments in the writ petition. The first respondent has also raised a contention regarding the maintainability of this writ petition before this Court. According to first respondent, the Employees' State Insurance Court set up under Section 74 of the Employees' State Insurance Act is the competent court to adjudicate the dispute that has been raised by the petitioner in this writ petition. In view of the above, it is contended that this writ petition may be dismissed relegating the petitioner to the said statutory remedy. 2. I find force in the above contention. The employees' W.P.(C).No.25516 of 2004 2 State Insurance Court established under Section 74 of the Act is the competent court to determine the dispute raised in this writ petition. Therefore, the petitioner has to approach the said court for necessary reliefs. The first respondent has also raised a contention against the relief claimed by the petitioner on the ground of limitation. Since I have already found that the remedy of the petitioner is to approach the Employees' State Insurance Court established under Section 74 of the Act, I refrain from considering any of the other contentions raised either in this writ petition or in the counter affidavit filed by the respondent. All the contentions on the merits are left open can be decided as and when they are raised before the competent court, In view of the above, there are no grounds to grant any of the reliefs claimed in the writ petition. This writ petition fails and is accordingly dismissed without prejudice to the rights of the petitioner to approach the Employees' State Insurance Court for appropriate reliefs, in accordance with law. K.SURENDRA MOHAN, JUDGE. mns