IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.N.KRISHNAN MONDAY, THE 15TH SEPTEMBER 2008 / 24TH BHADRA 1930 Ins.APP.No. 37 of 2006 ------------------------ IC.70/2003 of EI COURT, PALAKKAD .................... APPELLANT/OPPOSITE PARTY: -------------------------------------------- EMPLOYEES' STATE INSURANCE CORPORATION, REP. BY ITS REGIONAL DIRECTOR, ROUND NORTH, THRISSUR. BY ADV. SRI.T.V.AJAYAKUMAR RESPONDENTS/ APPLICANT: ---------------------------------------- RAMAKRISHNA MATH PRINTING PRESS, SREE RAMAKRISHNA MATH, PURANATTUKARA, THRISSUR DISTRICT, REP. BY ITS MANAGER, SWAMI VEDAPRIYANANDA. BY ADV. SRI.P.RAMAKRISHNAN THIS INSURANCE APPEALS HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 15/09/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: M.N.KRISHNAN, J. -------------------------- Ins. Appeal No. 37 OF 2006 --------------------- Dated this the 15th day of September, 2008 JUDGMENT This appeal is preferred against the order of the Employees' Insurance Court, Palakkad, in I.C. No.70/03. Ramakrishna Math Printing Press is the applicant before that court. It has challenged the initiation of proceedings against it to cover under ESI Act. The EI Court held that the driver is not a part and parcel of the printing press and when the driver is excluded, the total number of employees would be less than the number required and hence it cannot be covered under the ESI Act. It also held that there are binding charges paid to 10 persons on piecerate basis. But the court held that since the binding work is done in the premises of those persons without any control by the applicant, it cannot be considered as the one coming within the definition of employee under section 2(9) of the ESI Act. 2. I am afraid that the learned Judge has not fully applied his mind to the definition of the word employee which states that it can also include a person to whom the work is entrusted and that he Ins. Appeal No. 37/06 2. is doing the same work elsewhere. Therefore, it is a point that has to be considered. The EI Court also held that the driver is not a part and parcel of the printing press. It is also a matter which the employer can prove by producing documents that he is the employee of the Math and that occasionally only he comes here to help the printing press. That also can be considered by the court below when the materials are furnished. If the parties want to raise any other contentions, that can also be considered by the court below and the matter be decided in accordance with law. Therefore, the order under challenge is set aside and the matter is remitted back to the court below for fresh consideration after affording equal opportunities to both sides to substantiate their contentions and the court below shall dispose of the matter in accordance with law. The EI Court shall send notice to the parties for hearing. M.N.KRISHNAN, JUDGE vps Ins. Appeal No. 37/06 3.