IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.N.KRISHNAN FRIDAY, THE 3RD OCTOBER 2008 / 11TH ASWINA 1930 Ins.APP.No. 66 of 2006 -------------------------------- I.C.NO.113/2004 OF EMPLOYEES INSURANCE COURT, ALAPPUZHA. .................... APPELLANT/ (OPPOSITE 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: ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ M/S.LANSEA FOODS PRIVATE LIMITED, REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR, 10/318, KANNAMALI, CHERIYAKADAVU, KOCHI. ADV. SRI.P.RAMAKRISHNAN FOR R1. THIS INSURANCE APPEALS HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 03/10/2008,THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: prv. M.N.KRISHNAN, J ===================== INAP No.66 OF 2006 ===================== Dated this the 3rd day of October 2008 JUDGMENT This appeal is preferred against the judgment of the Employees' Insurance Court, Alappuzha in I.C.No.113 of 2004. The E.S.I.Corporation issued notice for contribution relating to the period from 1995-96 to 1998- 99 on omitted wages made as per C-18 notice dated 30.9.2004. The court below in the light of the decision of this Court in ESI Corporation v. Excel Glasses Ltd.(2003(3) KLT 42) held that any claim for contribution initiated beyond a period of 5 years is barred by limitation and therefore disallowed the same. It is against that decision the Corporation has come up in appeal. 2. Learned counsel for the Corporation has brought to my notice the decision of the Apex Court in ESI Corpn. v. Santhakumar(2007(1)KLT 133(SC). There, the Apex Court held that while considering Section 77(1A) (b) and Section 45(A) of the Employees State Insurance Act the question of limitation will arise only if the Employees' Insurance Corporation approaches the court for any remedial measures. The Apex Court made it clear that there is no such stipulation of time for initiating action by the INAP 66/2006 -:2:- Corporation against an establishment. The Apex Court also held that ordinarily an action has to be initiated within a reasonable period and that it would depend upon the factual circumstances of the case concerned. The Apex Court made it clear that there cannot be any empirical formula to determine that question. The court/authority considering the question whether the period is reasonable or not has to take into account the surrounding circumstances and relevant factors to decide that question. So, in the light of this decision the matter requires reconsideration at the hands of the E.I. Court. Therefore the order under challenge is set aside and the matter is remitted back to the E.I.Court for fresh consideration of the entire matter in the light of the enunciated principles laid down in 2007(1) KLT 133(SC). All the questions to be determined in such cases as laid down by the Apex Court have to be considered and decide by the E.I.Court after affording equal opportunity to both sides. E.I.Court shall send notice to both the parties intimating the date of appearance before the said court. INAP is disposed of as above. M.N.KRISHNAN, JUDGE Cdp/- INAP 66/2006 -:3:-