IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.N.KRISHNAN FRIDAY, THE 22ND AUGUST 2008 / 31ST SRAVANA 1930 Ins.APP.No. 35 of 2007() ------------------------ IC.69/2003 of E. I. COURT, PALAKKAD .................... APPELLANTS/OPPOSITE PARTIES: ---------------------------------------------------- 1. EMPLOYEES' STATE INSURANCE CORPORATION REPRESENTED BY ITS REGIONAL DIRECTOR, ROUND NORTH, THRISSUR. 2. THE RECOVERY OFFICER, E.S.I. CORPORATION, ROUND NORTH, THRISSUR. BY ADV. SRI.P.SANKARANKUTTY NAIR RESPONDENT: APPLICANT: ------------------------------------------ THE TRICHUR WHOLESALE CO-OPERATIVE CONSUMER'S STORES LTD. NO.R.239, THRISSUR, REPRESENTED BY THE MANAGING DIRECTOR. ADV. SRI.P.RAMAKRISHNAN FOR R1 THIS INSURANCE APPEALS HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 22/08/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: Kss M.N.KRISHNAN, J ===================== INAP No.35 OF 2007 ===================== Dated this the 22nd day of August 2008 JUDGMENT This appeal is preferred by the E.S.I Corporation against the order of the Employees' Insurance Court, Palakkad in I.C.No.69 of 2003. The applicant before the E.I.Court had challenged Ext.A3 whereby the Corporation demanded an amount of Rs.92,328/- towards contribution for the period from 4/1998 to 3/2002 on certain items of omitted wages. The Corporation resisted the claim and contended that the contribution is payable on wages paid to the members of the Headload Workers Welfare Fund. On the basis of the decision of this Court then in force and reported in 2003(3) KLT 805(ESI Corporation v. Babu Rao) the insurance court held that the Corporation cannot claim contribution on payment made to the headload workers welfare fund. This decision of this Court was taken in appeal before the Supreme Court as Civil Appeal No.5215 of 2006 and the Apex Court by its judgment dated 24.11.2006 had set aside the order as follows: “In this view of the matter, we set aside the order passed by the learned single Judge of the High Court and remit the matter back to the INAP 35/2007 -:2:- E.I.Court. The Committee and the State of Kerala should also be heard in the matter. Let this case be remitted back to the E.I.Court to issue notice to the State of Kerala as well as the Committee and after hearing them and appellant as well as the respondent, decide the matter afresh in accordance with law”. Therefore the said judgment is not in force and the decision rendered by the E.I.Court on the basis of the said decision cannot be sustained for the reason that it did not consider any other materials at all. Therefore the order under challenge is set aside and the matter is remitted back to the E.I.Court for fresh consideration in accordance with law. Both parties are permitted to raise all contentions and adduce both documentary and oral evidence in support of their respective contentions and the matter be disposed of in accordance with law. The Insurance Court shall issue notice regarding the posting of the case. M.N.KRISHNAN, JUDGE Cdp/-