IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.N.KRISHNAN MONDAY, THE 8TH MARCH 2010 / 17TH PHALGUNA 1931 Ins.APP.No. 75 of 2009(A) ------------------------ IC.57/2004 of E.I.COURT, KOLLAM .................... APPELLANT/APPLICANT: -------------------------------- M.ABRAHAM, PROPRIETOR, ABS METAL CRUSHER, VAYAKKAL, THEVANNUR P.O., AYOOR, KOLLAM. BY ADV. SRI.P.B.SURESH KUMAR SRI.LEO GEORGE SRI.K.P.SUJESH KUMAR SRI.K.N.SASIDHARAN NAIR RESPONDENT(S): OPPOSITE PARTIES: ------------------------------------------------- 1. THE REGIOAL DIRECTOR, ESI CORPORATION, PANCHADEEP BHAVAN, NORTH SWARAJ ROUND, THRISSUR. 2. RECOVERY INSPECTOR, ESI CORPORATION, KOLLAM. ADV. SMT.T.D.RAJALAKSHMY, SC, ESI CORPN. FOR R1 & 2 THIS INSURANCE APPEALS HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 08/03/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: M.N. KRISHNAN, J. = = = = = = = = = = = = = = INS.APPEAL NO. 75 OF 2009 = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = Dated this the 8th day of March, 2010. J U D G M E N T This appeal is preferred against the order of the Employees Insurance Court, Kollam in I.C.57/04. The applicant establishment is a metal crusher unit and it moved an application for setting aside the order making the establishment covered under the provisions of the E.S.I.Act. The short question that looms large in this matter is regarding the number of employees on the date of inspection by the Insurance Corporation Inspector. It is a settled proposition of law that unless there is substantial question of law an appeal cannot be entertained under the provisions of the E.S.I.Act. The fact whether there are 10 employees or less than 10 employees is a matter of fact. It is on determination of that fact the issue is answered. Unless there is total perversity or total mis appreciation of evidence an appellate court cannot interfere. Here the learned counsel INS.APPEAL NO. 75 OF 2009 -:2:- for the appellant very strongly contends before me that the wages register indicates only the number of employees as 7 and for that he had drawn my attention to the muster roll and wages register. He would argue it is a statutorily maintained document and therefore it has to be given due weight. It is to be remembered that the E.S.I. Inspector visits the premises of the applicant's unit on 2.4.02 and he has prepared a list of employees including their wages and such a document is counter signed by none other than the applicant himself. Now the applicant is trying to wriggle out of the situation by denying his signature in the document. The E.I.Court on appreciation of all the materials found that Exts.B1 and B1(a) can be relied upon for the purpose of the case. One cannot hold that there is any perversity or mis- appreciation in arriving at the decision on the basis of Exts. B1 and B1(a). Therefore there is no substantial question of law much less any question of law which arise for determination and therefore the appeal lacks merit and the INS.APPEAL NO. 75 OF 2009 -:3:- same is dismissed. M.N. KRISHNAN, JUDGE. ul/-