IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A.K.BASHEER & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.Q.BARKATH ALI TUESDAY, THE 30TH MARCH 2010 / 9TH CHAITHRA 1932 Ins.APP.No. 44 of 2007() ------------------------ ( I.C.NO.35/2004 ON THE FILE OF EMPLOYEES' INSURANCE COURT, PALAKKAD) APPELLANT/APPLICANT: ---------------------------------------- K.A. MOHANDAS, S/O.K.K.APPUKUTTAN, KANDATH PUBLIC CONVEYANCE, G.B.ROAD, PALAKKAD. BY ADV. SRI.K.VINOD CHANDRAN RESPONDENT(S): OPPOSITE PARTIES: -------------------------------- 1. EMPLOYEES STATE INSURANCE CORPORATION, REP. BY REGIONAL DIRECTOR, REGIONAL OFFICE(KERALA) PANCHADEEP BHAVAN, THRISSUR-20. 2. THE INSURANCE INSPECTOR, E.S.I. CORPORATION LOCAL OFFICE, JAINIMEDU, PALAKKAD. ADV. SRI.P.SANKARANKUTTY NAIR, SC, ESI CORPN THIS INSURANCE APPEALS HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 30/03/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: A.K.BASHEER & P.Q.BARKATH ALI, JJ. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Insurance Appeal No.44 OF 2007 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dated this the 30th day of March, 2010 JUDGMENT Basheer, J. This appeal is directed against the order passed by the Employees Insurance Court, Palakkad. The appellant had approached the court below impugning the order passed by the Regional Director of Employees State Insurance Corporation directing him to remit an amount of Rs. 180,408/- as contribution for the period from November 1, 1997 to July 31, 2002. According to the appellant, he had employed only 8 persons in his four buses and therefore he would not be covered under the Employees State Insurance Act. In other words, his contention was that no contribution was payable by him. 2. The court below after considering the entire materials available on record, found that the contention of the appellant that he was not covered under the Act cannot be sustained and therefore held that appellant would be liable to pay contribution in respect of his employees. We do not find any reason to interfere with the above Insurance Appeal No.44/2007 2 conclusion made by the court below. 3. But, as regards the quantum of compensation payable by the appellant, the court below deemed it fit that the same be reworked or reassessed by respondent No.1 in the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case. However, in the meanwhile, the appellant was directed to remit a sum of Rs. 50,000/- before respondent No.1 within sixty days from the date of the order viz. April 25, 2005 in addition to the sum of Rs. 10,000/- which the appellant had already deposited under Section 75(2A) of the Act. 4. It is conceded by learned counsel for the appellant that appellant did not avail of the above opportunity given to him. He could not, for reasons beyond his control, remit the sum of Rs. 50,000/- as directed by the court below within the time stipulated. 5. It is brought to our notice that the Corporation has not initiated any action in this regard so far, even though the appellant had failed to remit the amount. Having regard to the entire facts and circumstances, we are inclined to grant another opportunity to the appellant to salvage the situation. Insurance Appeal No.44/2007 3 6. The appellant shall remit the sum of Rs. 50,000/- as directed by the court below on or before April 15, 2010, in which event, respondent No.1 shall pass a fresh assessment order quantifying the contribution payable by the appellant. 7. It is made clear that if the appellant does not make the remittance of Rs. 50,000/- on or before the date indicated above, the Appeal will stand dismissed. The appeal is allowed to the above extent. A.K.BASHEER, JUDGE P.Q.BARKATH ALI, JUDGE sv. Insurance Appeal No.44/2007 4