IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.PADMANABHAN NAIR TUESDAY, THE 4TH MARCH 2008 / 14TH PHALGUNA 1929 Ins.APP.No. 12 of 2006() ------------------------ APPELLANT / RESPONDENT : ----------------- THE DEPUTY DIRECTOR, E.S.I. CORPORATION, THRISSUR. BY ADV. SRI.T.V.AJAYAKUMAR, SC, ESI CORPN. RESPONDENT / APPLICANT: ------------- K. BABU, HOTEL GALAXY, BYEPASS JUNCTION, MEENACHANDA, KOZHIKODE-18. BY ADV. SRI.N.RAGHURAJ THIS INSURANCE APPEALS HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 04/03/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: K.PADMANABHAN NAIR, J. ------------------------------- Insurance Appeal No.12 of 2006 ------------------------------- Dated this the 4th March, 2008. J U D G M E N T DW.1, the Inspector of the appellant Corporation conducted an inspection on the premises of the respondent on 27.2.2003 and prepared Ext.D1 list and Ext.D3 preliminary inspection report. As per Ext.D1 list, there were 11 employees. The stand taken by the respondent is that there were only 9 employees. He examined Arulmurugan and Balakrishnan Nair, whose names are given in Ext.D1 list as employees. They deposed before the court that they were not the employees, but they went to that hotel on that particular date, and the Inspector asked them to affix their signature. ESI court has believed their evidence. 2. The learned counsel appearing for the appellant has argued that DW.1 who has prepared Ext.D1 list gave evidence to the effect that he had seen Pws.2 and 3 working in the hotel. It is also argued that Ext.D1 was countersigned by the manager of the hotel and in Ext.D1, the status of Pws. 2 and 3 as employees of the hotel was admitted. Though the Employees Insurance Court had not specifically In.App.No.12/2006 2 stated that it is disbelieving the evidence of DW.1, the effect of the finding entered into by that court is that ESI court had preferred the evidence of Pws.2 and 3 to that of DW.1. Number of employees working in a hotel is a pure question of fact. So, I do not find any reason to interfere with the finding of the Insurance Court. But at the same time, I make it clear that this Judgment will not be a bar for conducting further inspection and proceed against the Hotel, if it is found that 10 or more persons are working in the hotel. K.PADMANABHAN NAIR, JUDGE nj.