IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.N.KRISHNAN THURSDAY, THE 15TH JULY 2010 / 24TH ASHADHA 1932 Ins.APP.No. 60 of 2009(E) ------------------------ IC.102/2005 of EMPLOYEES INSURANCE COURT, ALAPPUZHA .................... PETITIONER(S): APPELLANT/APPLICANT ---------------------------------------------------- RAMAVARMA DISTRICT CLUB NEAR DISTRICT HOSPITAL ALAPPUZHA REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY PHILIP ABRAHAM S/O. K.M.ABRAHAM KUREEKKATTIL HOUSE, VELLAKKINAR, CIVILSTATION WARD, ALAPPUZHA. BY ADV. SRI.SYAM J SAM RESPONDENT(S)/RESPONDENT : -------------------------------------- THE REGIONAL DIRECTOR, E.S.I. CORPORATION PANCHADEEP BHAVAN, ROUND NORTH, THRISSUR-20. ADV. SRI.T.V.AJAYAKUMAR, SC, ESI CORPN. THIS INSURANCE APPEALS HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 15/07/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: M.N. KRISHNAN, J. = = = = = = = = = = = = = = INS.APPEAL NO. 60 OF 2009 = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = Dated this the 15th day of July, 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.102/05. It was an application filed by the appellant for a declaration that the appellant, Club is not liable to be covered under the E.S.I.Act. According to the appellant the number of employees are less than 20 and the Club leased out a portion of its premises to an independent person to run a restaurant. It is also submitted that the employees are not that of the Club. 2. On the other hand the respondent would contend that Insurance Inspector visited the establishment on 13.5.05 and found 19 persons employed for wages. There was a bar and restaurant attached to the Club. The applicant had employed seven regular employees and 12 employees through an immediate employer. It is also further submitted that preparation of food items in the kitchen is attached to INS.APPEAL NO. 60 OF 2009 -:2:- the Club and power was used. On a consideration of the entire materials exhaustively by the E.I.Court the Court arrived at a decision that the appellant is not entitled to the relief claimed for and therefore confirmed the order of the E.S.I. Corporation. 3. Admittedly the establishment is a club. There is a kitchen(restaurant) as well as a bar. It has been held in so many decisions that food manufacture in kitchen is a manufacturing process covered u/s 2(k) of the Factories Act and hence Club having kitchen and employing more than 10 persons is covered under the Act. It has also been held that activities of a Club is having direct connection with the whole of the club hence employees of entire club are covered under the Act. It has to be further stated that keeping in view of the fact that restaurant in a club is very much a part of the cultural establishment it has to be held that it is covered under the E.S.I.Act. It is true that the restaurant is run through an agency but principal employer is the club itself and nobody else. Therefore the contention that the Club is INS.APPEAL NO. 60 OF 2009 -:3:- not covered and restaurant and bar has to be detached cannot be accepted. The finding of the E.I.Court is perfectly in order and therefore it does not call for any interference. Hence the appeal is dismissed. M.N. KRISHNAN, JUDGE. ul/-