IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.N.KRISHNAN TUESDAY, THE 17TH JUNE 2008 / 27TH JYAISHTA 1930 Ins.APP.No. 88 of 2007() ------------------------ IC.31/2004 of EMPLOYEES INSURANCE COURT, ALAPPUZHA .................... APPELLANT/APPLICANT ------------------------------------ INDIRA DAS, PROPRIETOR DAS COIR WORKS CHARAMANGALAM, MUHAMMA P.O., ALAPPUZHA. BY ADV. SRI.A.JAYASANKAR SRI.MANU GOVIND RESPONDENT/ RESPONDENT ----------------------- THE REGIONAL DIRECTOR E.S.I.CORPORATION, PANCHDEEP BHAVAN, ROUND NORTH, THRISSUR-20. BY ADV. SRI.T.P.M.IBRAHIM KHAN, SC, ESI CORPN. FOR R1 THIS INSURANCE APPEALS HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 17/06/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: Ins.APP.No. 88 of 2007 -2- ORDER ON I.A. NO.3058 OF 2007 IN INS.AP. NO.88 OF 2007 DISMISSED 1`7.6.2008 (Sd/- M.N.KRISHNAN, JUDGE) M.N.KRISHNAN, J. -------------------------- Insurance Appeal No. 88 OF 2007 --------------------- Dated this the 17th day of June, 2008 JUDGMENT This appeal is preferred against the order passed by the Employees' Insurance Court, in I.C. 31/04. By the said order, the court held that the applicant establishment comes under the ESI Act from 8.8.03 onwards and therefore directed the Employees' State Insurance Corporation to initiate fresh proceedings to assess the ESI contribution with notice to the applicant. 2. Learned counsel for the appellant/applicant would submit before me that they are not covered and therefore the said finding is incorrect. It is submitted that the workers available at the premises were the workers of a contractor who was delegated to do certain work in the premises. When it is so, it has to be stated that the question that may have to be determined is whether the contractor is an immediate employer. As per the statutes the appellant has to pay the contribution first and to recover the same from the immediate employer. In order to arrive at a finding necessarily a notice has to go to the said person who has been Ins. Appeal No.88/07 2 examined as PW2 in this case and who has admitted that he was a contractor working under the appellant. Therefore, I direct the ESI Corporation to issue notice first and then to decide the question whether PW2 in this case is an immediate employer. Thereafter ut can enter into a finding and proceed in accordance with the other terms of remand in this case. If ultimately it is found that as a principle employer the appellant has to pay the amount then necessary provisions be made to authorise him to get the amounts so paid from the immediate employer after hearing him and decide the matter on merits. Thus the order of the ESI Court is modified and it is directed to proceed in accordance with the directions contained herein. M.N.KRISHNAN, JUDGE vps Ins. Appeal No.88/07 3 Ins. Appeal No.88/07 4