IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.N.KRISHNAN TUESDAY, THE 25TH JANUARY 2011 / 5TH MAGHA 1932 Ins.APP.No. 71 of 2010(A) ----------------------------- (AGAINST THE ORDER IN EIC 57/03 OF EMPLOYEES INSURANCE COURT, KOZHIKODE) APPELLANT/APPLICANT ------------------------------ SREE NARAYANA SAW MILLS, REPRESENTED BY ITS PROPRIETOR, K.P.ACHUTHAN, S/O.KUNHIRAMAN, KILACHAPARAMBATH (H), P.O.PANOOR, KANNUR. BY ADV. SRI.E.K.NANDAKUMAR RESPONDENT(S): RESPONDENT ------------------------------------- THE REGIONAL DIRECTOR, EMPLOYEES STATE INSURANCE CORPORATION, PANCHEEDEEP BHAVAN, NORTH SWARAJ ROUND, THRISSUR-20. BY ADV. T.V. AJAYAKUMAR THIS INSURANCE APPEALS HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 25/01/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: M.N. KRISHNAN, J. = = = = = = = = = = = = = = INS.APPEAL NO. 71 OF 2010 = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = Dated this the 25th day of January, 2011. J U D G M E N T This appeal is preferred against the order of the Employees Insurance Court, Kozhikode in E.I.C.57/03. It was an application filed by the establishment to set aside the order passed by the Employees Insurance Corporation making the provisions of the Act applicable to the establishment. According to the Corporation the establishment of the applicant contains 12 employees and power is used and therefore it satisfies all the conditions for coverage. On the other hand the establishment would contend that it has got only six employees and it cannot be covered under the Act. It is true that the applicant did not properly co-operate with the INS.APPEAL NO. 71 OF 2010 -:2:- officials of the E.S.I.Corporation when the inspector inspected the premises for the said purpose. Ultimately it is reported by the officer that there are 12 employees and he had given the details. The documents were not produced for inspection by the establishment. But when the matter came up before Court the wage register and muster rolls are produced and the Court has marked it as Exts.P1 to P6. If Exts.P1 to P6 are acceptable then the question whether there are six employees or 12 employees will be a matter that has to be given a definite finding. It has also to be stated that if there are only six employees the persons who are not covered would have been examined by the establishment to prove that factor. It was also not done. The Employees Insurance Court judge had principally relied upon the report of the INS.APPEAL NO. 71 OF 2010 -:3:- Insurance Inspector along with the evidence tendered by the officers of the Corporation to arrive at a decision. After hearing both sides I feel that the matter should have been little more elaborately considered and the acceptability of Exts.P1 to P6 also should have been looked into. Similarly an opportunity can be given now at least to examine the persons who are stated to be not the employees. Therefore I set aside the order passed by the E.I.Court and remand the case back to the said Court for fresh consideration after permitting the parties to adduce evidence to explain the documents which is already there before Court. I make it clear that no additional documents need to be entertained or produced. Thereafter let the matter be discussed in detail and disposed of in accordance with law. The E.I.Court is directed INS.APPEAL NO. 71 OF 2010 -:4:- to issue notice to the parties informing the date for their appearance. Sd/- M.N. KRISHNAN, JUDGE. ul/- [true copy] P.A. To Judge.