IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.SIRI JAGAN FRIDAY, THE 20TH JUNE 2008 / 30TH JYAISHTA 1930 WP(C).No. 10819 of 2004(K) -------------------------- PETITIONER: ---------------- PONNAN PILLAI, PROPRIETOR, LATHA CASHEW EXPORTS, THATTAMALA P.O., KOLLAM. BY ADV. SRI.S.SANTHOSH RESPONDENTS: ------------------- 1. THE REGIONAL DIRECTOR, EMPLOYEES STATE INSURANCE CORPORATION, PANCHDEEP BHAVAN, NORTH SWARAJ ROUND, THRISSUR. 2. THE RECOVERY OFFICER, REGIONAL OFFICE, EMPLOYEES STATE INSURANCE CORPORATION, PANCHDEEP BHAVAN, NORTH SWARAJ ROUND, THRISSUR BY ADV. SMT.T.D.RAJALAKSHMY, SC, ESI CORPN. GOVERNMENT PLEADER SMT. N. SUDHA DEVI. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 20 /06/2008, THE COURT ON 20/06/2008 DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: WP(C).No. 10819 of 2004 EXT.P1: COPY OF THE ORDER DT. 24.9.98 PASSED BY THE EMPLOYEES INSURANCE COURT, KOLLAM. RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS EXT.R1(a): COPY OF THE WRITTEN STATEMENT FILED IN IC NO.51/96 BEFORE THE E.I. COURT, KOLLAM. TRUE COPY PA TO JUDGE. S. SIRI JAGAN, J. ------------------------------------ W.P.(C)No. 10819 OF 2004 ---------------------------------------- Dated this the 20th day of June, 2008 JUDGMENT The petitioner’s establishment is covered under the Employees State Insurance Act. The petitioner has approached this Court aggrieved by the demand for ESI contributions for the period from July 1982 to May 1984 by notice dated, 30.1.96, by the respondents. The petitioner’s wife had filed an Insurance Case before the Employees Insurance Court, Kollam in respect of the demand which was dismissed by Ext.P1 order. The petitioner has filed this writ petition mainly on the ground that because of the limitation prescribed under Section 77(1A) of the Employees State Insurance Act, the demand is barred by limitation. However, the learned counsel for the Corporation would bring to my attention a decision of the Supreme Court in Employees State Insurance Corporation V. Santhakumar [2007(1) KLT 133(SC)], wherein the Supreme Court has held that the limitation prescribed under Section 77(1A) of the Employees State Insurance Act is not applicable to demands W.P.(c)No.10819/08 2 made by the Corporation for contributions. I have gone through that decision. I am of opinion that the issue involved in this writ petition is squarely covered by that decision. Therefore, I do not find any merit in this writ petition and accordingly the same is dismissed. S. SIRI JAGAN, JUDGE Acd W.P.(c)No.10819/08 3