IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE J.B.KOSHY & THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE K.HEMA FRIDAY, THE 1ST FEBRUARY 2008 / 12TH MAGHA 1929 MFA.No. 1152 of 2001() -------------------------------- IC.30/1999 of EMPLOYEES INSURANCE COURT, ALAPPUZHA .................... APPELLANT: OPPOSITE PARTY. ------------------- EMPLOYEES STATE INSURANCE CORPORATION REGIONAL OFFICE, PANCHADEEP BHAVAN, THRISSUR. BY ADV. SRI.T.V.AJAYAKUMAR RESPONDENT: APPLICANT ---------------------- ERNAKULAM REGIONAL CO- OPERATIVE, MILK PRODUCES UNION, P.B. NO.2212, EDAPPALLY, KOCHI 25, REP.BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR. BY ADV. SRI.B.S.KRISHNAN (SR.) SRI.K.ANAND (A.201) THIS MISC. FIRST APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 01/0/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: M.F.A . NO.1152/2001 ORDER ON CMP. NO.8058/2001 IN M.F.A. NO.1152/2001 DISMISSED 01.02.2008 SD/- J.B.KOSHY, JUDGE SD/- K.HEMA, JUDGE /TRUE COPY/ P.A. TO JUDGE tss J.B.KOSHY & K.HEMA, JJ. ------------------------------- M.F.A.NO.1152 OF 2001 (D) ----------------------------------- Dated this the 1st day of February, 2008 J U D G M E N T KOSHY,J. Respondent herein is a Co-operative Society engaged in the distribution of milk in the State of Kerala. For distribution of milk, vehicles were used on contract and vehicle owners employ their own workers. Originally a demand was issued to cover them treating them as employees of the society. That was challenged before the E.I.Court. E.I.Court dismissed the same because Society did not deposit the amount ordered to be deposited as a condition precedent in filing the application. Thereafter they represented to the Government. Government issued a notification exempting the above class of employees directly from the E.S.I.Act. Meanwhile, by taking coercive proceedings, the amount was realised with interest. When the Government exempted the above class of persons from coverage, Society applied for refund of the amount realised MFA.1152/2001 2 from them by coercive methods. That claim for refund was refused. Admittedly no benefit was granted to these employees by the appellant E.S.I.Corporation even though retrospectively the entire amount with interest was realised from them. Being a public sector undertaking it ought have refunded the amount without making a refund application. But refund was not made in spite of the application. Tribunal after considering these aspects, allowed the application. Corporation was charging 15% interest in respect of all dues to it. Considering all these aspects Court ordered as follows: “Considering all relevant aspects, I am of the view that the refund amount shall carry simple interest @ 12% per annum from 2.11.1995. In the result, the application is allowed. It is declared that the applicant is entitled to get refund of Rs.9,26,300.92 with interest at the rate of 12% per annum from 2.11.1995, the date of notification of exemption. The respondent corporation is directed to reimburse the amount with interest within two months of this order. If the respondent corporation fails to reimburse the amount as ordered, the applicant can adjust it towards any existing dues or future dues to the Corporation.” MFA.1152/2001 3 We are of the opinion that order of the E.I.Court is perfectly valid and justified considering the facts of the case. We see no ground to interfere in the impugned order. There is no substantial question of law involved, and hence, this appeal is dismissed. J.B.KOSHY, JUDGE K.HEMA, JUDGE prp J.B.KOSHY & K.HEMA, JJ. -------------------------------------------------------- M.F.A.NO.1152 OF 2001 () --------------------------------------------------------- J U D G M E N T --------------------------------------------------------- 1st February, 2008