IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.R.RAMAN & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE T.R.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR THURSDAY, THE 7TH AUGUST 2008 / 16TH SRAVANA 1930 Ins.APP.No. 41 OF 2006() ------------------------ IC.100/2003 OF EMPLOYEES INSURANCE COURT, ALAPPUZHA .................... APPELLANT/OPPOSITE PARTY: ------------------------------------------ THE REGIONAL DIRECTOR, E.S.I. CORPORATION, PANCHADEEP BHAVAN, ROUND NORTH, THRISSUR-20. BY ADV. SRI.P.SANKARANKUTTY NAIR RESPONDENTS: APPLICANT/2ND O.P: ------------------------------- 1. P.M. KAREEM, INS.NO.54-1174920, PREMIER TYRES, KALAMASSERY. 2. THE GENERAL MANAGER, PREMIER TYRES LIMITED, KALAMASSERY. BY ADV. SRI.A.JAYASANKAR FOR R1 SRI.MANU GOVIND FOR R1 SRI.A.M.SHAFFIQUE (SR.) FOR R2 SRI.E.K.NANDAKUMAR FOR R2 SRI.A.K.JAYASANKAR NAMBIAR FOR R2 SRI.P.BENNY THOMAS FOR R2 THIS INSURANCE APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 07/08/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: P.R. RAMAN & T.R. RAMACHANDRAN NAIR, JJ. = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = INSURANCE APPEAL NO. 41 OF 2006 = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = DATED THIS, THE 7TH DAY OF AUGUST, 2008. J U D G M E N T Raman, J. This appeal arises out of the judgment dated 27.10.2005 in I.C. No. 100/2003 rendered by the Employees' Insurance Court, Alappuzha. Appellant is the Regional Director, ESI Corporation, Thrissur. 2. The appellant impugns the judgment rendered by the EI Court. The applicant before the Insurance Court - one P.M. Kareem, was a covered employee under the Employees State Insurance Scheme, who met with an accident on 14.5.2003 and suffered an injury which, according to him, resulted in permanent partial disablement. Though the employer forwarded the accident report, the Corporation took the view that the applicant had ceased to be a covered employee with effect from 1.4.2003 since his salary exceeded the prescribed limit, to qualify him to be an 'employee' under the Act with effect from the date. But the contention raised before the Employees Insurance Court was that since the accident occurred during the benefit period, corresponding to a wage period when he was an employee, INAP. 41/2006 :2: he is entitled to the benefit. This was accepted by the EI Court following the decision rendered by some of the High courts including the judgment in M/s. Calicut Modern Spinning and Weaving Mills Ltd. v. P.A. Aboobacker (M.F.A. 538/1008). Subsequetly, the apex court in Krishnankutty Nair v. E.S.I. Corporation (2008(2) KLT 639) held that a claimant who ceased to be an employee under the Act on the increase in salary, would not be entitled to any benefit of disablement notwithstanding the fact that his contribution period and his status as an insured person continued up to the date of the accident. It was held as follows: "An examination of the provisions would show that the claimant was an employee up to 30th September, 1989 and ceased to be so on the next day as his salary had exceeded Rs. 1600/- per month which was the cut off wage fixed under the Act at that time. Admittedly, also the claimant was an insured person and the only difference between the two contesting parties is with regard to the significance of the contribution period which was to end on 30th June, 1990. For determining as to whether an employee was entitled to the benefit under the Act, reference has to be made to S.46(c) which would cover the present case. S.46(c) specifically provides for two cumulative conditions for its applicability i) the claimant must be an insured person and ii) that such an injury must be sustained when he was an employee. We therefore find that as the injury had been suffered after the claimant ceased to be an employee, he would not be entitled to any benefit of disablement notwithstanding the fact that his contribution period INAP. 41/2006 :3: and his status as an insured person continued up to 30th June, 1990." In view of the above decision of the apex court, the point is squarely covered in favour of the appellant. Accordingly, we set aside the judgment of the EI Court and dismiss the application IC 100/2003. The appeal is allowed as above. P.R. RAMAN, (JUDGE) T.R. RAMACHANDRAN NAIR, (JUDGE) knc/-