IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.N.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE HARUN-UL-RASHID WEDNESDAY, THE 24TH SEPTEMBER 2008 / 2ND ASWINA 1930 Ins.APP.No. 23 of 2003() ------------------------ IC.20/1999 of E.I.COURT, KOLLAM .................... APPELLANT/APPELLANT: ---------------------------------------- KERALA STATE INDUSTRIAL PRODUCTS TRADING CORPORATION, PANAVILA JUNCTION, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, REPRESENTED BY ITS CHAIRMAN & MANAGING DIRECTOR. BY ADV. SRI.K.ANAND (A.201) RESPONDENT(S): OPPOSITE PARTY: ------------------------------ THE REGIONAL DIRECTOR, EMPLOYEES STATE INSURANCE CORPORATION, PANCHDEEP, NORTH SWARAJ ROUND, THRISSUR-680 020. ADV. SRI.T.V.AJAYAKUMAR THIS INSURANCE APPEALS HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 24/09/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: C.N.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR & HARUN-UL-RASHID, JJ. .................................................................... INS. Appeal No.23 of 2003 .................................................................... Dated this the 24th day of September, 2008. JUDGMENT Ramachandran Nair, J. The appellant, a Kerala Government undertaking is challenging the order of the Employees Insurance Court directing the appellant to pay contribution for the employees from June 1979 onwards. We have heard counsel appearing for the appellant and Standing Counsel appearing for the E.S.I. Corporation. 2. Counsel for the appellant contended that inspection was conducted only on 20.7.1998 and data based on which demand is raised pertains to the period June 1979 onwards. Even though counsel for the E.S.I. Corporation submitted that there is no limitation for demand and recovery of contribution payable to the E.S.I. Corporation, we do not think the appellant should be directed to pay the demand sustained by the E.I. Court for more than one reason. In the first place, it is clear from the inspection report that several employees for whom demand is raised were Government employees on deputation and E.S.I. Corporation has reckoned even the Managing Director who is also on deputation from the Government, as one of the 2 employees for the purpose of demanding contribution. In fact if the Government employees are excluded who are admittedly more, the number of employees falls below the limit that attracts liability. In this context counsel for the E.S.I. Corporation submitted that for the purpose of reckoning the number of employees for coverage, those who are to be excluded namely, Government employees, also should be taken into account. We do not think we should render finding on all issues raised because the Company which was promoted by the Government to market products of Government companies mainly, Travancore Titanium Products, is defunct for long and it is a paper company. Demands were under stay by this court for long years and if payments have to be made, Government will have to fund the company is the case of the appellant. Since the company is defunct and there is no continuous liability on account of stoppage of business, we allow the appeal vacating the orders of the E.I. Court and that of the E.S.I. Corporation exonerating the company from liability. C.N.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR Judge HARUN-UL-RASHID Judge pms