IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.SURENDRA MOHAN TUESDAY, THE 23RD FEBRUARY 2010 / 4TH PHALGUNA 1931 WP(C).No. 22340 of 2006(H) -------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- THE CANNING INDUSTRIES COCHIN LTD., EDAKOCHI, COCHIN-16, REPRESENTED BY CHAIRMAN, P.D. JOSE. BY ADV. SRI.T.M.CHANDRAN SRI.JOSHI VARGHESE SRI.S.SUJITH SRI.V.A.SASIDHARAN RESPONDENT(S): --------------- EMPLOYEES STATE INSURANCE CORPORATION, PANCHADEEP BHAVAN, NORTH SWARAJ ROUND, POST BAG NO.2, TRICHUR-20, REPRESENTED BY DEPUTY DIRECTOR. ADV. SRI.P.SANKARANKUTTY NAIR, SC, ESI CORPN FOR R1 THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 23/02/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: APPENDIX(WP(C) 22340/2006) PETITIONER'S EXTS. EXT.P1 TRUE COPY OF NOTICE/LETTER DTD 26.5.2005 ISSUED BY INSURANCE INSPECTOR OF ESI CORPORATION TO THE PETITIONER. EXT.P2 TRUE COPY OF LETTER DTD. 30.5.2005. EXT.P3 TRUE COPY OF NOTICE DTD. 14.7.2006 FROM THE RESPONDENT. lgk K.SURENDRA MOHAN, J ........................................... WP(C).NO. 22340 OF 2006 ............................................ DATED THIS THE 23rd DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2010 JUDGMENT The petitioner has filed this writ petition challenging the demands contained in Ext.P1 notice issued by the Insurance Inspector of the ESI Corporation. As per Ext.P1, a demand for contribution has been raised for the years, 1999, 2000 and 2001. The petitioner took up a contention that the demands for the year 1999-2000 was barred by limitation and that the amount demanded for the year 2000-2001 had already been remitted. 2. As per the counter affidavit filed on behalf of the respondent, it has been admitted that the amount of Rs.8369/- demanded in Ext.P1 for the year 2000-2001 has already been remitted by the petitioner. Regarding the contribution of Rs.15,372/- relating to the year 1999- 2000, though the petitioner contended that the same was barred by limitation, the said contention no longer subsists. Though this court had held in the decision reported in ESI Corporation V. Excel Glasses Ltd.(2003(3) KLT 42) in favour of the petitioner, the said decision has Wpc 22340/2006 2 been overruled by the Supreme Court as per the decision reported in ESI Corporation V. Santha Kumar(2007(1) KLT 133). In view of the affirmative pronouncement by the Apex Court, petitioner is bound to remit the amount of Rs.15,372/- that is demanded in respect of the years, 1999-2000. The counsel for the petitioner submitted that it was due to change of the law that the petitioner has now become liable to pay the said amount and not due to any wilful omission to remit the contribution that was payable. In view of the above, it is submitted that the petitioner is entitled to remission of interest and damages. I do not propose to say anything on the question of interest and damages that may be demanded in respect of the payment that has been found due. The petitioner is given the liberty to approach the appropriate authority for remission/waiver of interest and damages if and when they are demanded. This writ petition is disposed of as above. No costs. K.SURENDRA MOHAN, JUDGE lgk