IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.N.KRISHNAN WEDNESDAY, THE 30TH SEPTEMBER 2009 / 8TH ASWINA 1931 Ins.APP.No. 18 of 2007(F) --------------------------- IC.7/2000 of ESI COURT,IDUKKI .................... APPELLANT/OPPOSITE PARTY --------------------------------------------- THE EMPLOYEES INSURANCE CORPORATION, PANCHADEEP BHAVAN, NORTH SWARAJ ROUND, THRISSUR-20, REPRESENTED BY ITS REGIONAL DIRECTOR. BY ADV. SRI.P.SANKARANKUTTY NAIR RESPONDENT(S): APPLICANTS ----------------------------------- 1. SHRI. M.N.SOMANATHAN, MATTATHIL, VELLOOR, PAMPADY, KOTTAYAM. 2. SHRI. CHANDRASEKHARAN NAIR, PUTHENPARAMBIL, PAMPADY, KOTTAYAM. ADV. SRI.M.J.THOMAS FOR R1 THIS INSURANCE APPEALS HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 30/09/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: M.N. KRISHNAN, J. = = = = = = = = = = = = = = INS.APPEAL NO. 18 OF 2007 = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = Dated this the 30th day of September, 2009. J U D G M E N T This appeal is preferred against the order of the Employees Insurance Court, Idukki in I.C.7/00. The E.I.Court held that the claim made by the E.S.I. Corporation for contributions beyond the period of 5 years from the period to which the claim relates is barred by limitation and therefore restrained the Corporation from proceeding with recovery. It was on the basis of the decision of this Court in ESI Corporation v. Excel Glasses Ltd. (2003 (3) KLT 42). But there is a change of position of law and the decision of the Kerala High Court has been reversed by the Apex Court in E.S.I. Corporation v. Santhakumar (2007 (1) KLT 133 (SC). It was held in that case that, “Proviso to Clause (b) of S.77(1A) of the Act, fixing the period of five years for the claim made by the Corporation, will apply only in respect of claim made by the Corporation before the E.S.I. Court and to no other proceedings.” INS.APPEAL NO. 18 OF 2007 -:2:- The prescription of limitation has not been made applicable to an adjudication proceedings under S.45A. So far as the present case is concerned the E.I.Court is moved by the applicant and not by the ESI Corporation and therefore the law of limitation does not apply. But in the very same decision the Apex Court has also held that a 'reasonable period' would depend upon the factual circumstances of the case concerned. There cannot be any empirical formula to determine that the question. The Court/authority considering the question whether the period is reasonable or not has to take into account the surrounding circumstances and relevant factors to decide that question. So in the light of the authoritative pronouncement it has to be held that there cannot be any limitation for this claim but the question of reasonable period can be considered from the facts and circumstances of the case. Therefore I set aside the order of the E.I.Court and held that there is no limitation and direct the E.I.Court to decide the matter in the light of the judicial pronouncement in 2007 (1) KLT 133 and shall permit both INS.APPEAL NO. 18 OF 2007 -:3:- the parties to adduce documentary as well as oral evidence in support of their respective contentions and then dispose of the matter in accordance with law. The E.I.Court shall fix a date of hearing and give notice to the parties fixing the date of appearance. M.N. KRISHNAN, JUDGE. ul/-