IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.N.KRISHNAN WEDNESDAY, THE 27TH AUGUST 2008 / 5TH BHADRA 1930 Ins.APP.No. 7 of 2006() ----------------------- IC.53/2002 of EMPLOYEES' INSURANCE COURT, ALAPPUZHA .................... APPELLANT/APPLICANT ------------------------------------ C.A.SULAIMAN, MANAGING PARTNER, CHERAKKATTU CRUSHERS, EZHIPURAM, SOUTH VASHAKULAM. BY ADV. SRI.P.RAMAKRISHNAN SRI.C.ANIL KUMAR SRI.T.C.KRISHNA RESPONDENT: OPPOSITE PARTY --------------------------- THE REGIONAL DIRECTOR, E.S.I. CORPORATION, PANCHADEEP BHAVAN, NORTH SWARAJ ROUND, THRISSUR-20. BY ADV. SMT.T.D.RAJALAKSHMY, SC, ESI CORPN. SRI.P.SANKARANKUTTY NAIR, SC, ESI CORPN THIS INSURANCE APPEALS HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 27/08/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: INS.APPEAL No.7/06 ORDER ON I.A. No. 252/06 IN INS. APPEAL No.7/06 DISMISSED 27.8.08 SD/- M.N.KRISHNAN, JUDGE /TRUE COPY/ PA TO JUDGE. M.N.KRISHNAN, J. -------------------------- Ins. Appeal No. 7 OF 2006 --------------------- Dated this the 27th day of August, 2008 JUDGMENT This appeal is preferred against the award passed by the Employees' Insurance Court, Alappuzha, in I.C. No.53/02. The said case was filed by the applicant challenging the coverage of the metal crusher unit. Originally, the Insurance Court dismissed the same. Against the said judgment, MFA No.490/97 was filed. This court by its judgment dated 6.3.02, directed the EI Court to consider the matter after considering Ext.P1 series produced by the applicant before that court. 2. A perusal of the order passed by the court below would reveal that it has not give any serious consideration for the directions given to that court and makes a causal reference here and there. It has relied upon two other documents for the purpose of arriving at a decision. Admittedly, one of those documents has come into effect only after the first order of the ESI Corporation dated 27.7.92. When muster roll series is produced before the court and when there is a direction to consider the same, the court should have considered the entire materials as well as other documents and thereafter should Ins. Appeal No.7/06 2 have arrived at a decision. The court should not have given importance to the documents other than Ext.P1 alone and then trying to explain away the evidentiary value of Ext.P1 or its credibility. It was not what was intended by this court at the time of remanding the case. Therefore, the order under challenge is set aside and the matter is remitted back to the court below with a direction to consider the question afresh in the light of the earlier directions of this court. I make it clear that it will not preclude that court from considering other documents which is produced along with Ext.P1 series. After hearing both sides, the court below shall arrive at a decision. The EI Court is directed to issue notice to the parties fixing the date of hearing. The appeal is disposed of accordingly. M.N.KRISHNAN, JUDGE vps Ins. Appeal No.7/06 3