IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE K.HEMA THURSDAY, THE 28TH JULY 2011 / 6TH SRAVANA 1933 Ins.APP.No. 42 of 2011() ----------------------------- EIC.67/2005 of E.I.COURT, KOZHIKODE .................................... APPELLANT/RESPONDENT ---------------------------------------- THE REGIONAL DIRECTOR, E S I CORPORATION, PANCHADEEP BHAVAN, NORTH SWARAJ ROUND, THRISSUR-680020. BY ADV. SMT.T.D.RAJALAKSHMY, SC, ESI CORPN. RESPONDENT(S): APPLICANT --------------------------------------- THE PRINCIPAL, MEDICAL COLLEGE, KOZHIKODE-673008. ADV. SRI.T.R.RAVI FOR R1 SRI.P.S.MURALI FOR R1 THIS INSURANCE APPEALS HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 28/07/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: sou. K. HEMA, J --------------------------- Ins.Appeal.No.42 OF 2011 -------------------------------------- Dated 28th July, 2011 J U D G M E N T This appeal is filed against an order passed by the Employees Insurance Court allowing the application filed by respondent who is the Principal of Medical College. The Court declared that Principal of Medical College is not the employer of the Hostel/Mess workers of the Hostels/Mess in Medical College. It also declared that Ext.P6 assessment notice issued by respondent/appellant is unsustainable and it was set aside. It is further declared that the Hostel/Mess in the Medical College Campus is not factory as defined under section 2(12) of ESI Act and enforcement of coverage upon the Hostel/Mess are not sustainable. 2. Heard both sides. Learned counsel for respondent submitted that in the proceedings pending before the Employees Insurance Court, appellant took up a contention that respondent is an employer coming under the ESI Act. In a proceedings, before Industrial Tribunal, it was held that respondent is an “employer” under section 2(g) of Industrial Disputes Act. It was INAP. No.42/11 2 on that basis that proceedings were initiated by appellant- Corporation against respondent. But in a writ appeal no.20/2004, this court held that Principal, Medical College, Kozhikode is not an employer coming under the definition of section 2(g) of Industrial Disputes Act. In the light of the above pronouncement, the appeal itself will not be maintainable, it is submitted. 3. Learned counsel for appellant conceded that there is no evidence to show that minimum required employees were there in the hostel so that it will be covered under section 2(12) of ESI Act. On hearing both sides, it is clear that the decision reported in 2001(1) SCC 256 referred to in the appeal memo will not be applicable to the facts of this case, since number of employees falls short of the required minimum. I also find that no substantial question of law is involved in this appeal and the appellant cannot be succeeded on the basis of the evidence adduced in this case. This appeal is dismissed. Sd/- K. HEMA, JUDGE. Sou. // True copy // P.A to Judge