IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.N.KRISHNAN THURSDAY, THE 14TH AUGUST 2008 / 23RD SRAVANA 1930 Ins.APP.No. 25 of 2006() ------------------------------- CMP.18/2006 of E.I.COURT, KOZHIKODE .................... APPELLANT/PETITIONER : ------------------------------- E.S.I.CORPORATION, PANCHADEEP BHAVAN, NORTH SWARAJ ROUND, THRISSUR-680 026, REP. BY THE INSURANCE INSPECTOR (LEGAL), KOZHIKODE. BY ADV. SRI.T.V.AJAYAKUMAR RESPONDENT/RESPONDENT: ----------------------------------- P.N.NARAYANAN, MANAGING PARTNER, HINDUSTAN ENGINEERING PRODUCTS, THANKANKUNNU, THAZHA CHOVA, KANNUR-6. BY ADV. SMT.VIDHYA. A.C THIS INSURANCE APPEALS HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 14/08/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: Ins.APP.No. 25 of 2006 ORDER ON I.A.NO.805/2006 IN INS.APP.NO.25/2006 DISMISSED 14.08.2008 SD/-, M.N.KRISHNAN, JUDGE -TRUE COPY- P.A. TO JUDGE pac M.N. KRISHNAN, J. ------------------------------ Ins. Appl. No. 25 of 2006 ------------------------------ Dated this the 14th day of August, 2008 JUDGMENT This appeal is preferred against the order of Employees' Insurance court, Kozhikode in C.M.P No.18/2006. It was an application filed by the E.S.I Corporation under Section 148 A of the Code of Civil Procedure, claiming right of pre-hearing. The Employees' Insurance Court held that, its powers are confined under Section 78 of the E. S.I. Act, and only certain provisions of the Code of Civil Procedure is made applicable to the same . As it does not contain Section 148 A of the Code of Civil Procedure, the court came to the conclusion that there is no power for a party to appear by filing a caveat petition under Section 148 A of Code of Civil Procedure in the Employees' Insurance court. It is this decision i.e. challenged in this appeal. Three substantial questions of law are raised. a. whether the order of the learned E. I. Court dismissing the aforesaid caveat application filed by the appellant as not maintainable, is not unjustified and unsustainable in law? Ins. Appl. No. 25 / 2006 Page numbers b. whether the finding of the learned E. I. Court that neither the E. S. I Act nor the rules invest the E. I. Court to entertain an application under Section 148-A of C.P.C. is not violative of the provision of Section 78(2) of the E. S. I Act and Rule 47 of the Employees Insurance Court Rule and illegal? c. Whether the impugned order passed by the E.I. Court (In-charge) is not without jurisdiction? 2. The short question that arises for determination is whether a caveat petition will lie before the Employees' Insurance Court. This has been considered by a learned judge of this court, in the decision reported in [ 2007(1) K.L.T. 55]. It is held that ; “except in exceptional circumstances, the rules of procedure and fair play demand that no interlocutory order shall be issued against a person, who would be affected thereby, without being afforded an opportunity of being heard. This is the reason why law stipulates that an ad interim order issued without hearing a person, who would be affected thereby, should be supported by reasons for deferring issuance of notice before making Ins. Appl. No. 25 / 2006 Page numbers such an order. If a person who apprehends an interlocutory order against him volunteers to be present and offers to take notice and place contentions in opposition, there is no reason to refuse him the opportunity to oppose the grant of ad interim relief. The lodgment of a caveat does not depend upon any opposition to it by the intending plaintiff/ petitioner/ appellant. Section 148 A, though captioned as a right to lodge a caveat, is essentially the recognition of the legal right of an intending opponent to a litigation, to an opportunity of being heard before any interlocutory order is issued. Section 148 A of C.P.C is the legislative recognition of the existence of such an opportunity in an intending opponent and the obligations of the courts to afford to him such opportunity, on request in that behalf being registered with the court, in the prescribed manner. This is the progressive and purposive manner in which section 148 A of CPC has to be interpreted with the change of times and growth of litigations, in quantity and diversity, though not always in quality. No principle of law, justice, equity, fair play, or good conscience advises me to hold that if a respondent requests for an opportunity of hearing, he should be refused such opportunity and be told that he could avail such Ins. Appl. No. 25 / 2006 Page numbers opportunity of hearing only after the court considers issuance of an interlocutory order ex parte.” 3. A perusal of the said decision would squarely apply to the present case and I do not find any reason to deviate from the same. It also to be held that there are two other decisions referred to in para (7) of the said judgment, which holds that “lodgment of caveats cannot be discouraged by the Industrial or labour Court or any other authority dealing with judicial or quasi-judicial function”. So in the light of this, it has to be held that order passed by the court below is incorrect and therefore is set aside and I hold that Employees' Insurance Court is bound to consider and entertain a caveat filed under Section 148 A of the Code of Civil Procedure, to meet the ends of justice. The appeal is disposed of accordingly. M. N. KRISHNAN, JUDGE scm