IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.N.KRISHNAN FRIDAY, THE 11TH JULY 2008 / 20TH ASHADHA 1930 Ins.APP.No. 59 of 2005() ------------------------------------ (AGAINST ORDER IN I.C.NO.8/2001 DTD. 25/04/2005 OF EI COURT, IDUKKI) APPELLANT/OPP: PARTY: ------------------------------------- EMPLOYEES STATE INSURANCE CORPORATION, PUNCH DEEP BHAVAN, NORTH SWARAJ ROUND, THRISSUR, REPRESENTED BY ITSS REGIONAL DIRECTOR. BY ADV. SMT.T.D.RAJALAKSHMY, SC, ESI CORPN. RESPONDENT: APPLICANT: ------------------------------------------- M/S.EID PARRY (INDIA) LTD., GOODS SHED ROAD, NAGAMPADAM ROAD, KOTTAYAM, REPRESENTED BY ITS EXECUTIVE(SALES). BY THIS INSURANCE APPEALS HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 11/07/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: Kss M.N. KRISHNAN, J. = = = = = = = = = = = = = = INS.APPEAL NO. 59 OF 2005 = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = Dated this the 11th day of July, 2008. J U D G M E N T When the matter has come up for admission there was a delay and even in the delay condonation petition paper publication has to be taken out. There is no appearance for the respondents. The question involved is a question of limitation which is squarely covered by the decision of the Apex Court reported in E.S.I. Corporation v. Santhakumar (2007 (1) KLT 133 (SC). The brief facts would reveal that the ESI Corporation came to the conclusion that since the proceedings has been initiated after a period of five years for the contribution relating to the period from 1.4.91 to 31.10.94 and as the Full bench of this Court in the decision reported in ESI Corporation v. Excel Glasses Ltd. (2003 (3) KLT 42) held that the ESI Corporation has to make a claim for ESI contributions within five years. The Court below found that the claim is barred by limitation and no action can be pursued for the amount that is barred. Ins. Appeal 59 OF 2005 -:2:- Now, the position has changed and the Apex Court in the decision reported in 2007 (1) KLT 133 while considering S.77(1A) and 45A of the ESI Act had laid down the proposition that the bar only is relating to an action taken by the ESI Corporation through Court. It is made very clear that there is no limitation for initiating any proceedings by the ESI Corporation. So, in the light of this decision and as the decision relied on by the Court below is reversed by the Apex Court decision it has to be held that initiation of action by the authorities are maintainable. But, now again the matter has to be considered for the reason the amount has to be fixed after hearing and it can be done by the authorities after issuing notice. Therefore the judgment under challenge is set aside and it is found that there is no limitation and the ESI Corporation is permitted to issue fresh notice and determine the amount and realise it in accordance with law after hearing the party concerned, if he prefers to appear before the E.S.I. Corporation. M.N. KRISHNAN, JUDGE. ul/-