IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.N.KRISHNAN THURSDAY, THE 11TH MARCH 2010 / 20TH PHALGUNA 1931 Ins.APP.No. 65 of 2009() ------------------------ IC.125/2004 of EMPLOYEES INSURANCE COURT, ALAPPUZHA .................... APPELLANT - RESPONDENT: ------------------------------------------ THE REGIONAL DIRECTOR, E.S.I. CORPORATION, PANCHADEEP BHAVAN, THRISSUR - 20. BY ADV. SMT.T.D.RAJALAKSHMY, SC, ESI CORPN. RESPONDENT(S): APPLICANT: ---------------------------------------------- M/S.TORRY HARRIS SEA FOODS LTD, ERAMALLOOR, ALAPPUZHA DIST., REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR S.LALJI. THIS INSURANCE APPEALS HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 11/03/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: Kss M.N. KRISHNAN, J. ........................................... Ins.A.No.65 OF 2009 ............................................. Dated this the 11th day of March, 2010. J U D G M E N T This appeal is preferred against the order of the Insurance Court, Alappuzha in I.C.No.125/2004. It was an application filed in order to declare a demand for Rs.43,680/= as unsustainable. The short question that arose for consideration was that 14 executives were paid at the rate of Rs.1,000/= per annum and the Employees Insurance Corporation wanted to tack on that amount with the salary and claimed contribution for coverage under the ESI Act. It is seen from the materials available herein that para 10 of the report of the Insurance Inspector revealed that they were paid Rs.1,000/=. It is further observed that “according to their nature of duty, above category of employees have to travel to different landing centers like Munambam, Kochi , Kollam etc to purchase raw materials to the factory. Rs.1,000/= is the lump sum amount paid for their stay, food and other incidental expenses at the landing centres”. : 2 : Ins.A.No.65 OF 2009 So, it is very clear that Rs.1,000/= represents the necessary expenses for travel, food and stay of the employees when they are directed to tour outside their headquarters. The learned Employees Insurance Court found that it is only given for the purpose to meet the above requirements and thereafter it proceeded to consider and hold that it cannot be classified as one which comes under Section 2(22) of the E.S.I. Act. 2. I do not find any illegality or irregularity in the same finding much less any substantial question of law that arises for consideration. The appeal is devoid of any merit and it is dismissed. M.N. KRISHNAN, JUDGE cl : 3 : Ins.A.No.65 OF 2009