IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE V.RAMKUMAR & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.Q.BARKATH ALI TUESDAY, THE 15TH NOVEMBER 2011 / 24TH KARTHIKA 1933 Ins.APP.No. 66 of 2011() ------------------------ EIC.41/2003 of E.I.COURT, KOZHIKODE .................... APPELLANT/RESPONDENT ---------------------------------------- THE REGIONAL DIRECTOR,EMPLOYEES' STATE INSURANCE CORPORATION,SWARAJ ROUND NORTH, THRISSUR-682020. BY ADV. SMT.T.D.RAJALAKSHMY, SC, ESI CORPN. RESPONDENT(S): APPLICANT ------------------------ KERALA ROADWAYS PVT LTD,K R S PLAZA, INDIRA GANDHI ROAD,CALICUT REPRESENTED BY ITS GENERAL MANAGER(ACCOUNTS AND FINANCE) K.KUNHALI. ADV. SRI.M.AJAY THIS INSURANCE APPEALS HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 15/11/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: V. RAMKUMAR & P.Q. BARKATH ALI, JJ. ................................................................. Insurance Appeal No. 66 of 2011 ................................................................. Dated: 15.11.2011 JUDGMENT Ramkumar, J. Heard both sides. 2. This is an appeal filed by the E.S.I. Corporation under Sec. 82 of the Employees' State Insurance Act, 1948 (“the Insurance Act” for short) challenging the order dated 5-2-2010 passed by the Employees' Insurance Court, Kozhikode, partly allowing the application filed by the respondent Kerla Roadways Private Limited under Sec. 75 read with Sec. 77 of the said Act. As per the application filed as EIC No. 41 of 2003 , the respondent had sought for a declaration from the E.S.I. Court that the demand by the appellant Corporation as per notice No. 54- 3705106-INS-VI dated 24-4-2003 deamnding a total amount of Rs. 96,79,702.12 by way of contribution for the period April 1988 to March 1998 was illegal , irregular and unsustainable. 2. The application was opposed by the Insurance Appeal No. 66 of 2011 -:2:- appellant/Corporation. 3. The court below as per the impugned order partly allowed the application granting declaration and partly disallowed the declaration prayed for by the respondent. The operative portion of the judgment of the court below is as follows:- 1) It is declared that the applicant company is liable to pay contribution on the remuneration paid to casual employees during 1987-88 to 1997-98 and the demand made by the respondent in this regard is sustainable. 2) It is declared that the demand of contribution made by the respondent on the amount booked under the head 'HRA', and Date Processing are sustainable and the applicant company is liable to pay contribution on these payments. 3) It is declared that the applicant company is not liable to pay contribution on the remuneration paid to General Manager, amounts booked under the head 'cartage' coolie and Attimari Coolie', 'Brokerage and Commission', 'Staff Welfare' 'General Expenses' 'Repairs and Renewals' 'Door Delivery', 'Furniture fittings, 'Office equipments' hence the demand of contribution on these heads are not sustainable. 4) It is made clear that the respondent shall initiate proceedings afresh, after giving sufficient opportunity to the applicant and there upon determine the amount of contribution due. It is also to be noted that the amount already paid by the applicant during 1987-88 to 1997-98 by way of contribution and the amount deposited in the Insurance Appeal No. 66 of 2011 -:3:- present case shall be adjusted to the amount of contribution due at the time of final determination of the amount. 5) In view of the facts and circumstances of the case, there will be no order as to costs. The question of law formulated in page 6 of the Memorandum of Appeal is the following:- i) Whether the E.I. Court was right in holding that the applicant establishment is not liable to pay contribution under the heads viz. remuneration paid to the General Manager, amounts booked under the head 'cartage' coolie and attimari coolie, brokerage and commission, staff welfare, general expenses, repairs and renewals, door delivery furniture fittings, office equipments ? We are afraid that the said question cannot be characterised as a substantial question of law since answering the question one may have to go into substantial question of fact and hence the question formulated in the memorandum of appeal does not satisfy the requirements of Sec. 82 (2) of the Act. That apart as per conclusion No. 4 the E.S.I. Court has made it clear that the Corporation can initiate proceedings afresh after giving sufficient opportunity to the respondent herein and determine the amount of contribution. Hence, the appellant cannot really have any grievance in this matter. We, therefore, do not consider this to be a Insurance Appeal No. 66 of 2011 -:4:- fit case for admission. The question of law framed does not come within the ambit of a substantial question of law as enjoined by Sec. 82 (2) of the Act. This appeal is dismissed. Sd/-V. Ramkumar, Judge. Sd/- P.Q. Barkath Ali, Judge. ani/ /true copy/ P.S. to Judge