IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.N.KRISHNAN MONDAY, THE 15TH MARCH 2010 / 24TH PHALGUNA 1931 Ins.APP.No. 58 of 2008() --------------------------------- IC.115/2003 of EMPLOYEES INSURANCE COURT, ALAPPUZHA .................... APPELLANT/APPLICANTS ---------------------------------------- 1. M/S. THOTTUVA ARYASILPA VILLAGE INDUSTRIES ASSOCIATION, REP. BY ITS SECRETARY, KOOVAPPADY, PERUMBAVOOR, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT. 2. P. MOHANAN, SECRETARY, M/S THOTTUVA ARYASILPA VILLAGE INDUSTRIES ASSOCIATION, KOOVAPPADY, PERUMBAVOOR, ERNAKULAM. BY ADV. MR.PAULSON C.VARGHESE, MR.E.A.BIJUMON. RESPONDENTS/OPPOSITE PARTIES ----------------------------------------------------- 1. THE DEPUTY DIRECTOR, REGIONAL OFFICE, ESI CORPN., PANCHADEEP BHAVAN, THRISSUR-20. 2. INSURANCE INSPECTOR, OFFICE OF THE INSURANCE INSPECTOR, ESI CORPORATION, PERUMBAVOOR, ERNAKULAM. 3. THE RECOVERY OFFICER, ESI CORPN., 'PANCHADEEP BHAVAN', THRISSUR. 4. THE RECOVERY INSPECTOR, ESI CORPN., LOCAL OFFICE, PERUMBAVOOR, ERNAKULAM. R1 TO R4 BY ADV. MR.P.SANKARANKUTTY NAIR, SC, ESI CORPN. THIS INSURANCE APPEALS HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 15/03/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: Ins.APP.No. 58 of 2008 ORDER ON I.A. NO.2741/2008 IN INAP NO.58/2008 DISMISSED 15/03/2010. SD/- M.N.KRISHNAN, JUDGE //TRUE COPY// P.A. TO JUDGE rs. M.N. KRISHNAN, J. = = = = = = = = = = = = = = INS.APPEAL NO. 58 OF 2008 = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = Dated this the 15th day of March, 2010. J U D G M E N T This appeal is preferred against the order of the Employees Insurance Court, Alappuzha in I.C.115/03. It was an application filed for a declaration that the establishment of the applicant is not liable to be covered under the provisions of the ESI Act. The learned insurance Court on an analysis of the matter found that it is an establishment which is liable to be covered. The learned Insurance Court relied on the evidence of DW1 and document Ext.D1 series to conclude that the applicant has employed more than 10 persons for wages on 7.4.2001 and the manufacturing process was carried on with the aid of power and therefore it constitutes a factory as per the first part of S.2(12) of the E.S.I.Act. 2. The learned counsel for the appellant would contend before me there were never 10 persons or more employed and he has drawn my attention to the documents INS.APPEAL NO. 58 OF 2008 -:2:- produced. The Court below scrutinized the documents namely muster rolls and wages register for the years 2000- 2001. The Court felt that these documents were brand new documents written up at a stretch for the purpose of this case and produced before it. The Court also found that PW1 was not present when the insurance inspector inspected the premises. It was the president of the factory who was present at the time of the survey and attested the names of employees, has not been examined before the Court and the Court held that it is for obvious reasons. So the Court found that the evidence of PW1 and the muster rolls and the wages register are not proper to be accepted therefore repelled that contention and relying upon the personal inspection report of the officer coupled with Ext.D1 series documents had arrived at a decision regarding the coverage of the establishment. The finding on fact is absolutely on relevant materials. There is no misappreciation of evidence or mis application of law so as to warrant an interference of this Court on a question of INS.APPEAL NO. 58 OF 2008 -:3:- substantial law. There is no substantial question of law much less any question of law involved in this appeal and therefore the appeal lacks merit and the same is dismissed. M.N. KRISHNAN, JUDGE. ul/-