IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.N.KRISHNAN MONDAY, THE 26TH MAY 2008 / 5TH JYAISHTA 1930 MFA.No. 119 of 2003() ----------------------------- (IC.10/2000 of E.I. COURT, PALAKKAD) APPELLANT: OPPOSITE PARTY: ------------------------------------------- THE REGIONAL DIRECTOR, E.S.I. CORPORATION, PANCHADEEP BHAVAN, NORTH SWARAJ ROUND, THRISSUR-680 020. BY ADV. SRI.T.V.AJAYAKUMAR RESPONDENTS: APPLICANT: --------------------------------------- P.K.UTHUPPU, C/O. P.K.UTHUPPU & BROS., PULIKATTIL HOUSE, PAZHANJI-680 542, THRISSUR. BY ADV. SRI.M.P.ASHOK KUMAR THIS MISC. FIRST APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 26/05/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: M.N.KRISHNAN, J. -------------------------- M.F.A. No. 119 OF 2003 --------------------- Dated this the 26th day of May, 2008 JUDGMENT This appeal is preferred against the order of the Employees' Insurance Court, Palakkad, I.C. No.10/00. The appeal is preferred by the Employees' State Insurance Corporation challenging the finding of the insurance court that the establishment is not covered by the Act. The three questions of law had been raised in the memorandum of appeal. All these questions are depending on the factum whether there are 20 or more workers working in the establishment during the relevant period. The ESI court from para 6 onwards had dealt with the same. It has held that there are only 19 workers. It was reported by the Insurance Inspector that one Mohanan was also working as a coolie and that he had seen vouchers for payments. This Mohanan was examined and he had deposed before the court that he had worked in the establishment from 1993 after Gopalan left the service. The court also held that a perusal of the documents produced by the respondent/applicant shows that the maximum number of employees MFA NO.119/03 2 during the period from 1.1.91 to 31.12.1991 is only 19. So it was on appreciation of the evidence and facts the court has come to the conclusion. Unless there is such a perverse finding, this court cannot interfere and raise a substantial question of law on that issue. 2. I do not find any perversity and in second appeal matters the honourable Apex court has even held that the appellate court shall not substitute its views on facts even if two different views are possible. So taking into consideration all these principles, I do not want to interfere with the decision rendered by the court below. Therefore the MFA stand dismissed. M.N.KRISHNAN, JUDGE vps MFA NO.119/03 3 MFA NO.119/03 4