IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.N.KRISHNAN FRIDAY, THE 24TH OCTOBER 2008 / 2ND KARTHIKA 1930 Ins.APP.No. 20 of 2007() --------------------------------- IC.32/2003 OF EMPLOYEES INSURANCE COURT, ALAPPUZHA .................... APPELLANT/RESPONDENT ---------------------------------------- THE REGIONAL DIRECTOR, E.S.I. CORPORATION, PANCHADEEP BHAVAN, N.S.ROUND NORTH, THRISSUR-20. BY ADV. SRI.T.V.AJAYAKUMAR RESPONDENT/ APPLICANT --------------------------------------- M/S.BALALAKSHMI OFFSET PRINTERS, B.T.S. MANGALAM CORSS ROAD, PALARIVATTOM P.O., KOCHI-35, REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGER, C.V.RAVI KUMAR. ADV. SRIR.AZAD BABU FOR R1 THIS INSURANCE APPEALS HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 24/10/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: Rs/ M.N.KRISHNAN, J ===================== INAP No.20 OF 2007 ===================== Dated this the 24th day of October 2008 JUDGMENT This appeal is preferred against the award of the Employees' Insurance Court, Alappuzha in I.C.No.37 of 2003. The said application was filed by the respondent in the appeal seeking for a declaration that the applicant establishment is not liable to be covered under the E.S.I.Act. According to the applicant before the E.I.Court, it is a small scale offset printing press. The bone of contention is that whether there are ten employees as contemplated under Section 2(12) of the E.S.I.Act to arrive at a decision regarding the coverage of the establishment under the E.S.I.Act. The first contention is that there were 2 persons of which according to the establishment were persons deputed by the auditors for the purpose of scrutinizing the accounts. Those auditors are independent persons and it was on their behalf these persons had come to the office for the purpose of auditing. They were not employees of the establishment. The E.I.Court referring to the evidence of the Inspector held that the said contention is correct. The E.I.Court observed that DW1, the insurance Inspector has INAP 20/2007 -:2:- stated at the time of survey itself that Sri.Balakrishna Kaimal and Sri.V.N.Sasikumar are persons deputed for auditing and it is indicated in Ext.D2 survey report. This inspires confidence and therefore the E.I.Court held that they cannot be considered as employees of the establishment. 2. Then the Corporation contended that in the account book Rs.10/- is seen paid as unloading charges on 15.10.1998. This was considered by the court and held it is not proved that it is paid for clearance from the premises. 3. The next contention is regarding payment of cleaning charges of Rs.600/-. This amount was paid to one Sreekumar additionally for the purpose of cleaning, as he was staying in the premises. The said Sreekumar was also examined and the E.I.Court accepted his version. Therefore from the materials available, it has to be stated that the court has appreciated the matter only in the proper perspective and there has been no illegality, irregularity or perversity in the approach so as to interfere with the decision of the E.I.Court and much less there is any substantial question of law to be considered in the appeal. Therefore the appeal lacks merit and the same is dismissed. M.N.KRISHNAN, JUDGE INAP 20/2007 -:3:- Cdp/-