IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.N.RAVINDRAN MONDAY, THE 10TH JANUARY 2011 / 20TH POUSHA 1932 WP(C).No. 57 of 2011(F) --------------------- PETITIONER : -------------------- PRINCIPAL, JAI RANI PUBLIC SCHOOL, THODUPUZHA, THODUPUZHA.P.O., IDUKKI DISTRICT, PN-685584. BY ADVS. SRI.BABU JOSEPH KURUVATHAZHA SRI.K.I.SAGEER IBRAHIM RESPONDENT(S): ------------------------- 1. EMPLOYEES' STATE INSURANCE CORPORATION, PANCHDEEP BHAVAN, CIG ROAD, NEW DELHI-110002 REP. BY ITS DIRECTOR GENERAL. 2. THE SUB REGIONAL DIRECTOR, EMPLOYEES' STATE INSURANCE CORPORATION, SUB REGIONAL OFFICE, MALU'S COMPLEX, ST.FRANCIS CHURCH ROAD, KALOOR, KOCHI-17. 3. THE DEPUTY DIRECTOR, EMPLOYEES' STATE INSURANCE CORPORATION, SUB REGIONAL OFFICE, MALU'S COMPLEX, ST.FRANCIS CHURCH ROAD, KALOOR, KOCHI-17. R1 TO R3 BY ADV. SRI. P. SANKARANKUTTY NAIR, SC, ESI CORPORATION THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 10/01/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: Mn P.N.RAVINDRAN, J. --------------------------- W.P.(C) No. 57 OF 2011 -------------------------- Dated this the 10th day of January, 2011 J U D G M E N T The petitioner, who is the Principal of an aided school challenges Exts.P2 and P3 notices issued and Ext.P4 order passed by the third respondent under the provisions of the Employees State Insurance Act, determining the contribution payable by the petitioner's school under the said act. The petitioner had earlier filed a writ petition challenging the notification issued by the Government of India extending the provisions of the Employees State Insurance Act, 1948 to the petitioner's establishment with effect from 8.10.2007. That writ petition was dismissed by a Division Bench of this Court by judgment delivered on 3.7.2009. Exts.P2 and P3 notices were issued thereafter which resulted in Ext.P4 order dated 10.11.2010. In view of the fact that the writ petition challenging the notification has been dismissed, the petitioner cannot challenge Exts.P2 and P3 notices and Ext.P4 order on the ground that the notification extending the Act to the petitioner's establishment is illegal. It is stated that the petitioner has filed a Special Leave Petition in the Apex Court canvassing the correctness of the judgment of the Division Bench of this Court and WPC No.57/2011 2 therefore pending the Special Leave Petition, the third respondent ought not to have taken steps to recover the amount determined as per Ext.P4 order. In my opinion, if the petitioner is aggrieved by Ext.P4 order, his remedy is to canvass the correctness of Ext.P4 order before the Employees State Insurance Court. I therefore find no grounds to entertain this writ petition. The writ petition fails and is accordingly dismissed without prejudice to the right of the petitioner to canvass the correctness of Ext.P4 order before the Employees State Insurance Court. P.N.RAVINDRAN, (JUDGE) vps WPC No.57/2011 3 WPC No.57/2011 4