IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.N.KRISHNAN MONDAY, THE 30TH JUNE 2008 / 9TH ASHADHA 1930 Ins.APP.No. 25 of 2004(A) ------------------------- IC.17/2000 of EMPLOYEES INSURANCE COURT, ALAPPUZHA .................... APPELLANT/APPLICANT: ------------------------------------ M/S.LADY BUG, THEKKEKKARA MANSIONS, OPP.ABAD PLAZA, M.G.ROAD, KOCHI 682 035 REPRESENTED BY ITS PROPRIETRIX MRS.BERNARDINE AUGUSTINE BY ADV. SRI.MOHAN PULIKKAL RESPONDENT: OPPOSITE PARTY: ---------------------------------------------------- THE REGIONAL DIRECTOR, E.S.I.CORPORATION, PANCHADEEP BHAVAN, N.S.ROUND, THRISSUR-20. BY ADV. SMT.T.D.RAJALAKSHMY, SC, ESI CORPN.- R1 THIS INSURANCE APPEALS HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 30/06/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: ORDER ON I.A.NO.1600/2004 IN INS.APPEAL NO.25/2004 DISMISSED 30/06/2008 SD/- M.N.KRISHNAN, JUDGE /TRUE COPY/ P.A.TO JUDGE Kss M.N. KRISHNAN, J. = = = = = = = = = = = = = = INS.APPEAL NO. 25 OF 2004 = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = Dated this the 30th day of June, 2008. J U D G M E N T This appeal is preferred against the judgment of the Employees' Insurance Court, Alappuzha in I.C.17/00. By the said order the Court held that the plea of application regarding insufficient number of employees for coverage cannot be accepted. In order to bring in the appellant under the provisions of the E.S.I. Act it must be proved that there has been minimum employees of 20. The Court has not entered into a definite finding as to how much employees were there. It only presumed that when the wage register is perused it is seen that double the amount of wages is paid and therefore it does not relate to 16 or 18 employees as suggested by the appellant. The appellant would submit that arrears of wages, Commission to others etc. are also mistakenly entered in that register and that has created the confusion. There must be a specific finding as to how many employees were there or at least a definite finding that more Ins. Appeal 25 OF 2004 -:2:- than 20 employees should have been there on the basis of the materials available before the Court. Therefore, I feel the matter requires reconsideration at the hands of the E.I. Court. So, the judgment under challenge is set aside and the matter is remitted back to the Court below for fresh consideration whether there were more than 20 employees so as to bring in the appellant within the purview of the provisions of the E.S.I. Act. For the said purpose the Corporation as well as the appellant are given opportunity to produce further documents or adduce evidence in support of their respective contentions. The E.I. Court is directed to issue notice fixing the date of appearance for the parties. M.N. KRISHNAN, JUDGE. ul/-