IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.M.JOSEPH & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.L.JOSEPH FRANCIS FRIDAY, THE 29TH MAY 2009 / 8TH JYAISHTA 1931 Ins.APP.No. 13 of 2006(A) ------------------------ EIC.38/2002 of E.I.COURT, KOZHIKODE .................... APPELLANT/APPLICANT. ---------------------------------------- M/S.SANKAR WOOD INDUSTRIES, NIRMALAGIRI, KUTHUPARAMBA. BY ADV. SRI.A.M.SHAFFIQUE, SR. ADVOCATE SRI.E.K.NANDAKUMAR SRI.K.JOHN MATHAI SRI.P.BENNY THOMAS RESPONDENT(S): RESPONDENT. -------------------------- THE REGIONAL DIRECTOR, ESI CORPORATION, TRICHUR. BY ADV. SRI.P.SANKARANKUTTY NAIR, SC, ESI CORPN. THIS INSURANCE APPEALS HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 25/05/2009, THE COURT ON 29/05/2009 PASSED THE FOLLOWING: K. M. JOSEPH & M. L. JOSEPH FRANCIS, JJ. - - -- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - INS. APPEAL NO:13 OF 2006 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dated this the 29th Day of May, 2009. JUDGEMENT Joseph J. By the order impugned, the application filed by the appellant under Section 75 of the Act seeking declaration that appellant establishment is not covered by Employees State Insurance Act, stands rejected and it is declared that it is covered under ESI Act with effect from 27.9.01. The respondent is directed to initiate proceeding to assess the ESI contribution with notice to the applicant, with adequate and effective opportunity to produce relevant documents. 2. According to the appellant the employer had employed 8 employees and the evidence of the Insurance Inspector, did not contain identity of some of the employees. It is said, the report does not contain required particulars of the person's address and designations. We notice that Sri. V. C. Madhavan Namiar, who is the proprietor of the applicant himself was examined as PW1 and he produced Exts. P1 to P6. The respondent was examined as DW1 and marked Exts. D1 to D5. He was INS.A. NO: 13 OF 2009. : 2 : elaborately cross examined. We also notice that the court has found that Ext.P6, Attendance Register, produced by the appellant was not the register he examined at the time of inspection. It is found that in the said document, remarks and signature of the Inspector are not seen. There was no co-operation on the part of the appellant and his Manager and his employees. It is found that the applicant has employed more than 9 persons for wages and manufacturing activities were carried out with the aid of power from 27.9.01 and therefore, the establishment constituted a factory as per Section 2(12) of the ESI Act. 3. It is on that basis that the orders were passed. We feel that no substantial questions of law are raised by the appellant, which require our consideration and decision. The findings are findings of fact. 4. This appeal stands dismissed. K. M.JOSEPH, JUDGE. M. L. JOSEPH FRANCIS, JUDGE. dl/