IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.N.KRISHNAN TUESDAY, THE 8TH FEBRUARY 2011 / 19TH MAGHA 1932 Ins.APP.No. 61 of 2010() ---------------------------------- I.C.19/2005 OF EMPLOYEES INSURANCE COURT, KOLLAM .................... APPELLANT/APPLICANT ------------------------------------ S. RAMADEVI, PROPRIETOR, M/S SREEKRISHNA WIRE CUT BRICKS, MUTHUPILAKKAD P.O., SASTHAMCOTTAH KOLLAM DISTRICT. BY ADVS. SRI.M.V.THAMBAN SRI.R.REJI SRI.B.BIPIN RESPONDENT/OPPOSITE PARTY & ADDL OPPOSITE PARTIES 2 TO 6: ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 1. THE REGIONAL DIRECTOR, E.S.I. CORPORATION, PANCHADEEP BHAVAN, THRISSUR. 2. M.G.MOHANAN PILLAI, S/O. GOVINDAN PILLAI, MANNOORPUTHEN VEEDU, MUTHUPILAKKAD P.O, SASTHAMKOTTAH, KOLLAM DISTRICT. 3. NARAYANAN, S/O.ADICHAN, THULLAKKULATHIL VEEDU, PADINJARE THEKKEPURA, MUTHUPILAKKAD.P.O., SASTHAMKOTTAH, KOLLAM DISTRICT. 4. BABU PILLAI, S/O.SIVADASAN PILLAI, CHAVANIPLAVILA, MUTHUPILAKKAD.P.O., SASTHAMCOTTAH, KOLLAM DISTRICT. 5. THOMAS, S/O.KOCHUKUNJU, KUZHIVILAKIZHAKKATHIL,MUTHUPILAKKAD.P.O., SASTHMKOTTAH, KOLLAM DISTRICT. 6. RADHAKRISHNA PILLAI, S/O.RAVEENDRAN PILLAI, MANGAICHIVILA, MUTHUPILAKKAD.P.O., SASTHAMCOTTAH KOLLAM DISTRICT. R1 BY ADV.SRI. T.V.AJAYAKUMAR THIS INSURANCE APPEALS HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 08/02/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: sts INS.APPEAL.NO.61/2010 ORDER ON I.A.NO.2388/2010 IN INS.APPEAL NO.61/2010 DISMISSED 08/02/2011 SD/- M.N.KRISHNAN, JUDGE /TRUE COPY/ P.S.TO.JUDGE sts M.N. KRISHNAN, J. = = = = = = = = = = = = = = INS.APPEAL NO. 61 OF 2010 = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = Dated this the 8th day of February, 2011. J U D G M E N T This appeal is preferred against the order of the Employees Insurance Court, Kollam in I.C.19/05. The crux of the dispute between the applicant and the Corporation is with respect to the number of employees which will directly decide the question regarding the coverage of the establishment. If there are 10 or more employees the establishment will be covered under the provisions of the E.S.I.Act. According to the applicant the total number of employees are only five whereas according to the Employees State Insurance Corporation it is 11. Now the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the decision reported in 2009 (3) KLT 946 (SC) Fertilizers and Chemicals Travancore Ltd. v. E.S.I. Corporation and other INS.APPEAL NO. 61 OF 2010 -:2:- cases have made it very clear that when a dispute regarding a fact which will have adverse effect on the employees, the employees or the representatives of the employees should be impleaded as parties and they should be heard before a final decision is taken in the matter. Of course the establishment had impleaded five persons about whom there is no dispute regarding the employment. The dispute is with respect to the other six more persons who are alleged to be employees. So interest of justice requires that those persons whose names are mentioned in Ext.B5(a) report are also impleaded and the matter be heard afresh after affording equal opportunity to all concerned to produce both documentary as well as oral evidence in support of their respective contentions and then the matter be disposed of in accordance with law. INS.APPEAL NO. 61 OF 2010 -:3:- The E.I.Court is directed to issue notice to the parties informing the date of appearance. M.N. KRISHNAN, JUDGE. ul/-