IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.N.KRISHNAN FRIDAY, THE 5TH MARCH 2010 / 14TH PHALGUNA 1931 Ins.APP.No. 28 of 2007() --------------------------------- IC.21/2002 of EMPLOYEES INSURANCE COURT, ALAPPUZHA .................... APPELLANT(S)/RESPONDENTS ------------------------ 1. THE REGIONAL DIRECTOR, E.S.I CORPORATION, NORTH SWARAJ ROUND, THRISSUR-20. 2. THE RECOVERY OFFICER, E.S.I.CORPORATION, NORTH SWARAJ ROUND, THRISSUR-20. BY ADV. SMT.T.D.RAJALAKSHMY, SC, ESI CORPN. RESPONDENT(S): APPELLANT ------------------------ K.P.RAJAN, RAJ ELECTRICALS & ENGINEERING INDUSTRIES, PARAMBITHARA ROAD, ERNAKULAM, COCHIN 682036. BY ADV. MR.K.J.ABRAHAM THIS INSURANCE APPEALS HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 05/03/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: tss M.N.KRISHNAN,J. ====================== Ins.Appeal No.28 OF 2007 ====================== Dated this the 5th day of March 2010. JUDGMENT This appeal is preferred against the order of the Employees Insurance Court, Alappuzha in I.C.21/2002. The applicant moved a petition for declaration that the establishment is not liable to be covered under the Employees State Insurance Act. The contention of the applicant is to the effect that he had never employed more than 9 persons in the establishment and therefore the establishment cannot be covered under the Act. The E.S.I Corporation would contend that there were 30 employees and therefore the establishment is covered. So the question depends upon the decision regarding the number of employees. It is an absolute question of fact. Unless there is a perverse finding or mis appreciation of evidence generally one cannot raise a substantial question of law on those facts. It is in this background the matter has to be Ins.Appeal No.28 OF 2007 2 analysed . The employer had been examined. He had produced Register of Wages, Account books and all these documents did reveal that there were only 9 employees. The muster role also establishes that fact. The Insurance Court had accepted those document. The Insurance Court has extracted evidence of DW2 in Para 9 and para 10 of the order. It is stated that what is seen disbursed as wages in the wage register is corresponding to the cash book and the ledger. DW2 also would depose that he had not seen any other employees other than what is enrolled in the muster role on the dates of his visit. 2. As against this, the Insurance Corporation relies upon a report submitted by an Insurance Inspector. It is stated there in that he had prepared a list of 30 employees. The details are not available. He had not interviewed any workers. The seal of the establishment in D4(a) and D2 is seen slightly different. According to the Inspector he had taken the name of the 30 persons employed as per muster role maintained there. But he did not take copy of said muster role and attached to this report. It can also be seen Ins.Appeal No.28 OF 2007 3 even the signature found therein is disputed. No step are taken to prove the same. Over and above then the Corporation at last could have taken steps to examine at least one person other than the 9 mentioned in the list to prove its case. It is also not done. So it has to be stated that against the documents which are properly and regularly maintained, we are only having a report which are full of defects as I have mentioned earlier. Therefore the Employees Insurance Court correctly did not accept the same and relied upon the other document to arrive at a decision that there were only 9 employees in the establishment. By no stretch of imagination this finding on fact can be said to be illegal or perverse and therefore really no substantial question of law arises for consideration. Therefore, appeal lacks merits and same is dismissed. M.N.KRISHNAN,JUDGE. mns