IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.N.KRISHNAN WEDNESDAY, THE 6TH JANUARY 2010 / 16TH POUSHA 1931 Ins.APP.No. 17 of 2008() ------------------------ IC.93/2006 of EMPLOYEES INSURANCE COURT, ALAPPUZHA .................... APPELLANT/RESPONDENT ---------------------------------------- THE REGIONAL DIRECTOR, E.S.I. CORPORATION, NORTH SWARAJ ROUND, THRISSUR-20. BY ADV. SRI.T.V.AJAYAKUMAR RESPONDENT/ APPLICANT ------------------------ M/S.JEEVAN TELECASTING CORPORATION LTD., RASHTRA DEEPIKA BUILDING, P.B.NO. 2312, KOCHI-35. ADV. SRI.A.V.XAVIER FOR R1 THIS INSURANCE APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 06/01/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: M.N.KRISHNAN, J. --------------------------- INS.APPEAL.No. 17 OF 2008 --------------------------- Dated this the 6th day of January, 2010 J U D G M E N T ~~~~~~~~~~~ This appeal is preferred against the order of the Employees Insurance Court, Alappuzha, in I.C.No.93/2006. The establishment was directed to pay damages of Rs.19,106/- and to set aside the same, the Employees Insurance Court was moved. It is contended by the establishment that there was no willful laches and the delay occasioned on account of the unavoidable financial crisis. Now, it is the fairly well settled position that the mere delay in payment shall not be a ground to impose damages. There must be mens rea, contumacious conduct or deliberate evadement of payment. As seen from the order of the court below, the reason for the delay is on account of financial crisis beyond the control. There was no deliberate attempt to delay the payment. Recently, a Division Bench of this Court in the decision reported in Regional Director, E.S.I. Corporation and another v. Managing Director, M/s.Qetcos Ltd [ILR 2008(3)132] had held that in all cases INAP.No.17/2008 2 damages need not be levied, if it is proved to the satisfaction of the Court that there was no mens rea or contumacious conduct. Therefore, applying the dictum and to the facts of the present case, it has to be held that the discretion has been properly exercised by the court below. Therefore, the appeal lacks merits and dismissed. (M.N.KRISHNAN, JUDGE) ps