IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.N.KRISHNAN FRIDAY, THE 11TH JULY 2008 / 20TH ASHADHA 1930 Ins.APP.No. 60 of 2004() ------------------------ IC.81/2001 of EMPLOYEES INSURANCE COURT, ALAPPUZHA .................... APPELLANT/APPELLANT: -------------------- M/S. GOPALAKRISHNA COIR WORKS, S.N. JUNCTION, MUHAMMA, ALAPPUZHA, REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING PARTNER. BY ADV. SRI.K.ANAND (A.201) SMT.LATHA KRISHNAN RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS: ------------------------ 1. THE REGIONAL DIRECTOR, ESI CORPORATION, PANCHADEEP BHAVAN, N.S. ROUND, THRISSUR-20. 2. THE RECOVERY OFFICER, ESI CORPORATION PANCHADEEP BHAVAN, N.S. ROUND, THRISSUR-20. BY ADV. SRI.T.V.AJAYAKUMAR - R1 & R2 THIS INSURANCE APPEALS HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 11/07/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: Ins.APP.No. 60/2004 ORDER ON I.A. NO.3581/2004 IN Ins.APP.No. 60/2004 DISMISSED SD/- 11/07/2008 M.N. KRISHNAN, JUDGE /TRUE COPY/ P.A. TO JUDGE scm M.N. KRISHNAN, J. = = = = = = = = = = = = = = INS.APPEAL NO. 60 OF 2004 = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = Dated this the 11th day of July, 2008. J U D G M E N T This appeal is preferred against the judgment of the Employees Insurance Court, Alappuzha in I.C.81/01. The grievance of the appellant is regarding the demand made by the State Insurance Corporation with respect to the contributions due on the ground that some of the amount claimed are beyond the period of five years and therefore it is barred by limitation. The E.S.I. Court on factual analysis held that there is no such limitation and rejected the contention of the applicant. In the light of the latest pronouncement on the point by the Apex Court in the decision reported in E.S.I. Corporation v. Santhakumar (2007 (1) KLT 133 (SC) the earlier decision of this Court in ESI Corporation v. Excel Glasses Ltd. (2003 (3) KLT 42) has been reversed. The Apex Court considered the impact of S.77(1A)(b) and S.45A of the E.S.I. Act and came to a conclusion that the question of limitation arises only in a Ins. Appeal 60 OF 2004 -:2:- matter where the E.I. Corporation approaches the Court and there is no limitation for the E.I. Corporation to initiate action in accordance with the provisions of the Act. So in the light of the said pronouncement the question of limitation does not arise for consideration at all and therefore the appeal lacks merit and it is only to be dismissed and I so so. 2. The learned counsel for the appellant requests this Court to give a direction to the ESI Corporation to consider the representation given by the establishment on 4.10.04. It is a prayer that can be considered and therefore a direction is given to the Corporation to consider the said representation and when it is satisfied that there are sufficient grounds and there is real financial stringency which disables the establishment from paying the amount in lump let that be considered sympathetically and appropriate orders passed. Ins. Appeal disposed of accordingly. M.N. KRISHNAN, JUDGE. ul/-