IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.N.KRISHNAN FRIDAY, THE 15TH JANUARY 2010 / 25TH POUSHA 1931 Ins.APP.No. 31 of 2009() ------------------------ IC.89/2006 of ESI COURT, PALAKKAD .................... APPELLANT:1ST OPPOSITE PARTY: ------------------------------------------------------- M/S.NEO TECH AMUSEMENTS & RESORTS (P)LTD (REPRESENTED BY IT'S MANAGING DIRECTOR SRI.T.S.ASOKAN) MALAMPUZHA, PALAKKADU. BY ADV. MR.M.B.PRAJITH RESPONDENT(S): APPLICANT/OPPOSITE PARTY: -------------------------------------------------------------------------- 1. T.RAJAN, S/O.LATE VASUDEVAN NAIR, SAHYADIRI COLONY, CHANDRANAGAR PO, PALAKKADU. 2. ESI CORPORATION, REP. BY ITS REGIONAL DIRECTOR, ROUND NORTH,TRICHUR. BY ADV. SRI.RAJESH SIVARAMANKUTTY THIS INSURANCE APPEALS HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 15/01/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: Kss ORDER ON I.A.NO.1978/2009 IN INS.APPEAL.NO.31/2009 DISMISSED 15/01/2010 SD/- M.N.KRISHNAN, JUDGE /TRUE COPY/ P.A.TO JUDGE Kss M.N. KRISHNAN, J. ........................................... Ins.A.No.31 OF 2009 ............................................. Dated this the 15th day of January, 2010. J U D G M E N T This is an appeal preferred against the order of the Employees Insurance Court, Palakkad in I.C.No.89/2006. The appellant before me was the first respondent before the court below and it is seen from order especially para 3 that the proof affidavit was filed. As there was no representation for the appellant, the matter was postponed for cross examination and again the absence continued, which ultimately led to the non cross examination of the applicant. It is true that there are laches on the part of the present appellant before the court below and I feel it may not be proper in the interest of just to proceed on the basis of a mere chief affidavit without fully to understand the contentions that may raise for consideration in the case. I direct the present appellant to be more vigilant and co- operate him and so that the same mistake is not repeated hereafter. There are other points also involved but if the ..... after of the matters would relate to the factual analysis : 2 : Ins.A.No.31 OF 2009 which will have a clear picture only when a cross examination is over. Therefore, I set a side the order passed by the court below and remit the case back to the court below with a direction to reconsider the entire matter afresh after affording an opportunity to the present appellant namely the first opposite party to cross examine the applicant before the court below. I also permit the applicant if he feels necessary to have a disposal of the matter. The court was considered the matter after permitting the parties to adduce evidence and I direct the present appellant to be co-operate with and not to take unnecessary adjournments in the conduct of the case. I direct the insurance court to fix the date and intimate the parties regarding the date of hearing. If possible within three months from the date of first appearance of the parties the matter be disposed of by the court below. M.N. KRISHNAN, JUDGE cl : 3 : Ins.A.No.31 OF 2009 : 4 : Ins.A.No.31 OF 2009