IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.N.KRISHNAN TUESDAY, THE 30TH SEPTEMBER 2008 / 8TH ASWINA 1930 Ins.APP.No. 64 of 2006() ------------------------ IC.67/2003 of ESI COURT, PALAKKAD .................... APPELLANTS/OPP.PARTIES: ------------------------------------------- 1. E.S.I. CORPORATION, REGIONAL OFFICE, KERALA, PANCHADWEEP BHAVAN, NORTH SWARAJ ROUND, THRISSUR REPRESENTED BY ITS REGIONAL DIRECTOR. 2. THE RECOVERY OFFICER, E.S.I. CORPORATION, REGIONAL OFFICE, PANCHADWEEP BHAVAN, NORTH SWARAJ ROUND, THRISSUR. BY ADV. SMT.T.D.RAJALAKSHMY, SC, ESI CORPN. RESPONDENT(S): APPLICANT: ------------------------------------- KERALA DISTILLERIES, A UNIT OF SHAWWALLANCE DISTILLERIES LTD., K PUDUR KANJIKODE, PALAKKAD REPRESENTED BY ITS ASST. MANAGER (P & A). ADV. SRI.K.A.ABRAHAM SRI.S.S.NAIR THIS INSURANCE APPEALS HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 30/09/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: M.N. KRISHNAN, J. = = = = = = = = = = = = = = INS.APPEAL NO. 64 OF 2006 = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = Dated this the 30th day of September, 2008. J U D G M E N T This appeal is preferred against the judgment of the Employees Insurance Court, Palakkad in I.C.67/03. The only point canvassed before me is with respect to the finding entered into in paragraph 11 of the order. A perusal of paragraph 11 of the order would show that according to the Corporation the applicant failed to produce the relevant records for the purpose of bifurcating the wage element from Bottling Hall expenses. It was found on verification of General Ledger for the year 1996-97 that an amount of Rs.1,19,99,940/- had been incurred. The E.S.I. Corporation in the absence of records to find out the actual wage element applied the normal norms of 25% and calculated the amount, but the establishment produced a certificate from the registered valuer stating that the labour charge would come to Rs.21,35,451.81. If 25% is taken into consideration it will come to Rs.29,99,985/-. If it is 25% the assessed Ins. Appeal 64 OF 2006 -:2:- contribution will be Rs.1,65,000/- if it is that of the registered valuer it would be Rs.1,17,450/-. The E.S.I Corporation found that in the absence of convincing materials to hold otherwise regarding the evidence of the valuer's certificate it thought fit to accept the same instead of accepting a probable approximate guess. I cannot find fault with the said finding. So I hold that such an acceptance by the E.I. Court does not suffer from any illegality, irregularity or infirmity so as to attract a substantial question of law so as to entertain the appeal. 2. Learned counsel would contend that in paragraph 13 the Tribunal itself has held that the applicant shall be liable to pay contribution only on 25% of the total expenses incurred under the heads repair of buildings and water roofing whereas the Corporation wanted to assess it at 60%. The Court below found that 25% appears to be the reasonable approach and accepted it. But so far as Rs.1,17,450/- is concerned the decision arrived at by the Court below is not on conjectures and surmises but on the Ins. Appeal 64 OF 2006 -:3:- basis of a document issued by a registered valuer which has not been shattered in evidence in any form. Therefore I do not find any illegality or irregularity to interfere with the decision rendered by the E.I. Court and so the appeal lacks merit and it is therefore dismissed. The contention of the learned counsel for the E.S.I Corporation that 60% has to be accepted also is not proper and therefore that request is also rejected. M.N. KRISHNAN, JUDGE. ul/-