IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.N.KRISHNAN WEDNESDAY, THE 6TH AUGUST 2008 / 15TH SRAVANA 1930 Ins.APP.No. 63 of 2005() --------------------------------- IC. NO.42/2003 OF EMPLOYEES' INSURANCE COURT, PALAKKAD .................... APPELLANT/(OPPO.PARTY IN THE INSURANCE CASE.) ----------------------------------------------------------------------------- THE REGIONAL DIRECTOR, EMPLOYEES STATE INSURANCE CORPORATION, THRISSUR. BY ADV. SRI.T.P.M.IBRAHIM KHAN, SC, ESI CORPN. RESPONDENT/ (APPLICANT IN THE INSURANCE CASE.) -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- THE GENERAL MANAGER, M/S.PRECOT MILLS LIMITED, KANJIKODE, PALAKKAD. ADV. SRI.S.SHANAVAS KHAN THIS INSURANCE APPEALS HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 06/08/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: Rs/ M.N.KRISHNAN, J ===================== INAP No.63 OF 2005 ===================== Dated this the 6th day of August 2008 JUDGMENT This appeal is preferred against the order of the Employees' Insurance Court, Palakkad in I.C.No.42 of 2003. It was a case whereby the applicant therein was levied damages of Rs.89,374/-. There was a dispute regarding the payment of contribution in respect of holiday wages, overtime wages and interim relief. It was resolved by a case I.C.No.24 of 1996. It is submitted that there was no deliberate laches or contumacious conduct which warranted imposition of damages. The court below found that there is no delay in remitting the contribution and therefore refrained from imposing any damages and set aside the order passed by the Corporation. The matter is now squarely covered by a decision of the Division Bench of this Court in Regional Director, ESI Corporation and another v. Managing Director, M/s.Qeteos Ltd.(2008(3) ILR 132). This Court referring to the Apex Court's decision held that existence of mens rea or actus reus to contravene a statutory provision must also be held to be a necessary ingredient for levy of damages and/or the quantum thereof. The court also INAP 63/2005 -:2:- made it very clear that only because a provision has been made for levy of penalty, the same by itself would not lead to the conclusion that penalty must be levied in all such situations. It further held that even otherwise an endeavour should be made to construe such penal provisions as discretionary, under the statute is held to be mandatory in character. A perusal would reveal that there has been no contumacious conduct or deliberate act to violate the provisions of the statute so as to invite imposition of penalty by way of damages. Reasonable grounds are seen explained and therefore there is no merit in this appeal. Hence it is dismissed. M.N.KRISHNAN, JUDGE Cdp/-