IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.N.KRISHNAN WEDNESDAY, THE 17TH DECEMBER 2008 / 26TH AGRAHAYANA 1930 RP.No. 403 of 2007(E) ----------------------------- AGAINST THE JUDGEMENT/ORDER IN MFA.240/2002 Dated 04/09/2005 .................... REVIEW PETITIONER(S): PETITIONER/APPELLANT ------------------------------------------------------------- THE REGIONAL DIRECTOR, E.S.I. CORPORATION, THRISSUR. BY ADV. SRI.P.SANKARANKUTTY NAIR RESPONDENT(S): RESPONDENT ------------------------------------ K.M.GOVINDANKUTTY, MANAGING PARTNER, SEALTARS, SHORNUR. ADV. SRI.B.S.KRISHNAN (SR) SRI.K.ANAND SRI.LATHA KRISHNAN THIS REVIEW PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 17/12/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: M.N. KRISHNAN, J. = = = = = = = = = = = = = = R.P. 403 OF 2007 IN M.F.A. NO. 240 OF 2002 = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = Dated this the 17th day of December, 2008. O R D E R This R.P. is preferred against the judgment of this Court in M.F.A.240/02. The appeal was preferred against the order of the E.I. Court, Palakkad in I.C.25/00. The question that arose for consideration was regarding the coverage of the factory under the E.I. Act. The E.I. Court after consideration of the materials found that the factory is not covered and the applicant is not liable to pay contribution with effect from 1.11.97. It was based on the factual matrix available that decision was taken. It is against that decision the appeal was preferred. Learned counsel for the appellant had very forcibly argued before Court regarding the attraction of Ss.2 (9)(ii) and 2(13) of the E.S.I. Act. But this Court in paragraph 4 of the judgment found that the contentions of the counsel for the appellant is exclusively rooted on the facts involved and further held that the findings of the insurance company is strictly based on the evaluation of the R.P. 403 OF 2007 IN M.F.A. NO.240 OF 2002 -:2:- fact situation and no substantial question of law is involved. The Court after perusal of the entire materials had arrived at a decision that there is no substantial question of law. I do not find any reason to review the judgment for the reason that there is no error apparent on the face of the record or that the materials were not brought before Court in spite of due diligence or for any sufficient reasons. Therefore the Review petition is devoid of merits and therefore it is dismissed. M.N. KRISHNAN, JUDGE. ul/-