IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.N.KRISHNAN MONDAY, THE 21ST DECEMBER 2009 / 30TH AGRAHAYANA 1931 Ins.APP.No. 53 of 2008() ------------------------------------- IC.52/2003 of EMPLOYEES INSURANCE COURT, ALAPPUZHA .................... APPELLANT (S)/ 2ND APPLICANT:- -------------------------- DARLEY GEORGE, MATTATHIL KULATHINANIL KURIYANAD P.O., MOONIPPILLY VAZHI, KURUVILANGAD, KOTTAYAM. BY ADV. MR.B.KRISHNA MANI RESPONDENT(S): RESPONDENT -------------------------- 1. THE DEPUTY DIRECTOR, I.N.S. BRANCH IV, EMPLOYEES STATE INSURANCE CORPORATION, REGIONAL OFFICE, PANCHADEEP BHAVAN, NORTH SWARAJ ROUND, POST BAG NO.II, THRISSUR -20. 2. THE INSURANCE INSPECTOR, EMPLOYEES STATE INSURANCE CORPORATION, PERUMBAVOOR, ERNAKULAM DIST. R1 & R2 BY ADV. MR.P.SANKARANKUTTY NAIR, SC, ESI CORPN THIS INSURANCE APPEALS HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 21/12/2009, ALONG WITH INAP. NO.6 OF 2009 THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERRED THE FOLLOWING: ORDER ON IA. NO.2496/2008 IN INAP. NO.53/2008 DISMISSED 21/12/2009 SD/- M.N.KRISHNAN, JUDGE TRUE COPY P.A. TO JUDGE tss M.N. KRISHNAN, J. = = = = = = = = = = = = = = INS.APPEAL NOs. 53 of 2008 and 6 OF 2009 = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = Dated this the 21st day of December, 2009. J U D G M E N T Both these appeals are preferred against the order of the EI.Court , Alappuzha in I.C.52/03. The petitioners herein had preferred two separate appeals against the said order. Sri. M.D. Rajan is the Managing Partner of Jairaj Bar & Restaurant and Sri.Darley George is a partner therein. The question that arises for determination in the appeals are regarding the correctness of the order passed by the E.I.Court covering the establishment under the ESI Act. 2. According to the corporation the Jairaj Bar & Restaurant and lodges constitutes one unit and there are more than 10 employees and therefore it is covered under the provisions of the E.I.Act. The applicant would contend that the Bar and the restaurant is one unit and the lodge is a different unit and therefore it is not liable to be covered under the Act. Or in other words they contend for the INS.APPEAL NO. 53/08 & 6/09 -:2:- position that they are different entities. The E.I.Court on a consideration of the materials held that in order to get licence for a bar there must be restaurant as well as lodge. Therefore it is held by the Court that they cannot be bifurcated in the manner in which the applicant wants to do. The ground on which the Court below had arrived at the decision appears to be absolutely correct. In page 7 of the award it has arrived at a decision that for running a bar it is a statutory requirement that there should be a restaurant and a lodge with rooms. On the basis of the same relying on the evidence of DWs.1 and 2 and Exts.D1 to D5 series, the Court came to the conclusion that when it is integrated as a unit there are 11 employees working which is more than 10 in number and therefore the provisions of the E.S.I.Act is applicable. There is no mis appreciation of evidence or mis application of law or any erroneous finding which warrants interference at the hands of this Court and absolutely no INS.APPEAL NO. 53/08 & 6/09 -:3:- substantial question of law involved as well and therefore both the appeals lack merits and therefore are dismissed but without costs. M.N. KRISHNAN, JUDGE. ul/-