IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR TUESDAY, THE 3RD MARCH 2009 / 12TH PHALGUNA 1930 Ins.APP.No. 4 of 2009() ----------------------- IC.62/2004 of EMPLOYEES INSURANCE COURT, ALAPPUZHA .................... APPELLANT/RESPONDENT: ----------------------------- EMPLOYEES STATE INSURANCE CORPORATION, REPRESENTED BY ITS REGIONAL DIRECTOR, ROUND NORTH, THRISSUR. BY ADV. MR. THOMAS MATHEW NELLIMOOTTIL RESPONDENT/APPLICANT: ---------------------------- JACOB NEROTH, PROPRIETOR, THRESIN PROCESSING MILLS CANAL WARD, ALAPPUZHA-7. ADV. MR. R. AZAD BABU THIS INSURANCE APPEALS HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 03/03/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: M. SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR, J. ------------------------------------------------- Insurance Appeal No. 4 of 2009 -------------------------------------------------- Dated this the 3rd day of March, 2009 J U D G M E N T E.S.I. Corporation is challenging the order of E.I. Court of Kozhikode in I.C.No.62 of 2004 in this appeal. As per the impugned order dated 30.6.2008, the E.I. Court declared that the establishment of the respondent is not liable to be covered under the E.S.I. Act and is not bound to comply with the provisions of the E.S.I. Act. Appellant raised a contention before the E.I. Court that when the Insurance Inspector conducted a survey of the establishment on 18.12.2003, he found eleven persons employed for wages including a watchman and therefore it is an establishment as defined under section 2(12) of the E.S.I. Act and therefore the establishment is covered by the Act. E.I. Court rejected the case. It is challenged in the appeal. 2. Learned counsel appearing for appellant argued that though the E.I.Court rendered a factual finding that ten or more employees are not employed by the respondent and therefore the establishment is not covered by the E.S.I. Act, the finding is Ins. Appeal 4/09 2 against the evidence and the evidence was not properly appreciated. Learned counsel had taken me through the copy of the deposition of the respondent and argued that evidence establish that names of all the employees were not shown in the record and therefore it should have been found that ten or more employees are being employed by the respondent and hence the establishment is covered under the E.S.I. Act. 3. The fact that motor is used by the establishment of the respondent is admitted. The only question is whether there are ten or more employees working in the establishment. The finding that only less than ten workers are employed in the establishment of the respondent is a finding of fact. The Tribunal, on the evidence, found that the establishment has not employed ten or more workers as contended by the appellant. That finding of fact cannot be said termed a substantial question of law as canvassed by the learned counsel appearing for petitioner. The E.I. Court has taken note of the fact that though Ext.D2 report was filed by DW1, the Inspector, the report does not show the names of the employees to verify whether on the Ins. Appeal 4/09 3 date of the inspection there were ten or more workers employed in the establishment. For the mere statement in Ext.D2 report without furnishing the names and details it cannot found that eleven persons were employed. On the evidence it cannot be said that the finding of the E.I. Court is not in accordance with law. There is no substantial question of law involved in the appeal. This Insurance Appeal is therefore dismissed. M. SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR, JUDGE okb