IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE J.B.KOSHY & THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE K.HEMA FRIDAY, THE 11TH APRIL 2008 / 22ND CHAITHRA 1930 MFA.No. 253 of 2003(A) ---------------------- EIC.41/1996 of E.I.COURT, KOZHIKODE .................... APPELLANT: RESPONDENT --------------------- THE REGIONAL DIRECTOR,EMPLOYEES STATE INSURANCE CORPORATION,PANCHADEEP BHAVAN, THRISSUR-680 020. BY ADV. SRI.TPM.IBRAHIM KHAN RESPONDENTS: APPLICANT ----------------------- M/S.KOYENCO SOLVENT EXTRACTORS (P)LTD REPRESNETED BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR, SHRI.P.P.KOYA,KOYENCO BUILDINGS WEST HILL, CALICUT- 673 005. BY ADV. SRI.M.ASOKAN FOR R1 SRI.DEVAPRASANTH.P.J. FOR R1 THIS MISC. FIRST APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 11/04/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: J.B.KOSHY & K.HEMA, JJ. -------------------------------------- M.F.A.No.253 OF 2003 ------------------------------------- Dated 11th April, 2008 JUDGMENT Koshy,J . Respondent approached the Employees' Insurance Court when demand was made for the contribution on the omitted wages for the period January, 1987 to March, 1992. The E.I. Court set aside the demand on the contention that earlier several inspections were conducted and all the demands were complied with. The respondent establishment started functioning in 1984 and it was closed down in 1992. Thereafter another company was started and old employees were absorbed in that company. The period for which demand was sought for is the period when earlier company was existing. With regard to the period in question, i.e., 1987 to 1992 many inspections were conducted. Details are mentioned in paragraph 3 of the impugned order as follows: “Various E.S.I. Inspectors and officers of the E.S.I. Corporation have conducted inspection of their establishment and verification of their records and raised claims for contribution over and above the regular contribution. On 25.2.87, the establishment was inspected by Sri.p.m.Samuvel, Insurance Inspector and on the strength of his report, the respondent claimed certain amounts by way of arrears of contribution, which the applicant has remitted on 16.5.'87. Subsequently, another Inspector viz., MFA.253/2003 2 P.R.Panicker conducted inspection of the applicant's records on 11.5.'87 and demanded certain amounts by way of arrears of contribution. This also the applicant has complied with on 12.2.'88. On 12.4.'88, Sri.T.S.V.Iyer another Insurance Inspector conducted inspection of the applicant establishment and submitted a report based on which, the respondent raised certain claims on 5.6.'89, which was complied with by the applicant then and there itself. On 27.12.'90, Sri.T.A.Arulappan, Deputy Regional Director conducted inspection of the applicant establishment and submitted a report based on which certain claims were raised, which also the applicant complied with. On 19.11.'92 there was another inspection based on which certain payments were raised which also the applicant complied with on 9.3.'93. On 16.7.'93 another Insurance Inspector conducted inspection of the applicant's records and submitted his report, based on which, certain demands were raised, which also the applicant has complied with promptly. During 1987 to 1993 several inspectors have thus conducted inspection and claimed contributions which the applicant has complied with dutifully.” Thereafter, on 25.1.'94 another inspection was conducted and the present demands were raised for the period from 1/87 to 3/92. That was objected and the E.I. Court held that successive inspections for the same period cannot be done so as to make harassment. According to the respondent, those omitted wages are not wages paid to the employees and they are not omitted wages at all liable for contribution. The question referred to us is that once an inspection is over, whther subsequent inspection can be conducted or not. We MFA.253/2003 3 agree with the submission of the counsel for the Employees' State Insurance Corporation that merely because one inspection was conducted, there is no bar in conducting another inspection. However, successive inspections for the same period by five or six times by six inspectors is only a harassment and further an inspection conducted in 1994 did not say that earlier inspectors did not conduct the inspection properly. On the facts and circumstances of the case, we are of the opinion that successive five inspections for the same period by different officers without finding any fault in the earlier inspection is only harassment and the employees also will not get any benefit. Even though we agree with the Corporation on the question of law referred, we see no ground to interfere with the impugned order on the facts of this case. The appeal is dismissed. J.B.KOSHY JUDGE K.HEMA JUDGE tks