IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.M.JOSEPH & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.L.JOSEPH FRANCIS WEDNESDAY, THE 3RD JUNE 2009 / 13TH JYAISHTA 1931 Ins.APP.No. 72 of 2006(A) ------------------------ I.C..8/2001 of EMPLOYEES INSURANCE COURT, ALAPPUZHA .................... APPELLANTS/OPPOSITE PARTIES: ------------------------------------------------ 1. THE REGIONAL DIRECTOR E.S.I. CORPORATION, PANCHADEEP BHAVAN, N.S.ROUND, THRISSUR-20. 2. THE DEPUTY DIRECTOR E.S.I. CORPORATION, THRISSUR-20. BY ADV. SRI. P.SANKARANKUTTY NAIR RESPONDENT/ APPLICANT: ------------------------- SRINATH CORPORATION, BARREL RECONDITIONERS & HYDROLICTESTED BARREL DEALERS C.C.3/10, BAZAR ROAD, COCHIN-2, REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING PARTNER SRI.PARUVA R. SANGANI. BY ADV. SRI.A.M.SHAFFIQUE, SENIOR ADVOCATE SRI.E.K.NANDAKUMAR SRI.A.K.JAYASANKAR NAMBIAR THIS INSURANCE APPEALS HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 03/06/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: K. M. JOSEPH & M. L. JOSEPH FRANCIS, JJ. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - INS. APPEAL NO: 72 OF 2006 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dated this the 3rd Day of June, 2009. JUDGMENT Joseph J. This Insurance Appeal is directed against the Judgment in I.C. No.8 of 2001 of the Employees Insurance Court. 2. The respondent, a firm, was called upon to make remittance in respect of the payment made to head load workers among others. The Court has found, on the basis of the Judgment in 2001(1) : ILR Kerala 186 (ESI Corporation Vs. Babu Rao), that the respondent/ applicant cannot be held liable for contribution being made to the local committee, as the employer in relation to head load workers attached to the committee constituted under the Act, is the committee itself. 3. Heard the learned counsel for the appellants and the learned counsel for the respondent/ Applicant. INS. APPEAL NO: 72 OF 2006 : 2 : 4. It is the common case that the decision taken by this court has been set aside by the apex court and hence this may be a matter to be re-considered with the junction of the committee. We would think, that the matter has to be remitted to the court where, with the presence of the committee, the matter can be re-considered. Accordingly the impugned judgment is set aside and the matter is remitted back to the court below which shall, in the presence of the committee, decide the question in accordance with law, with opportunity to the parties. K.M.JOSEPH, JUDGE. M. L. JOSEPH FRANCIS, JUDGE. dl/