IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.PADMANABHAN NAIR THURSDAY, THE 28TH FEBRUARY 2008 / 9TH PHALGUNA 1929 Ins.APP.No. 27 of 2004() ------------------------ EIC.46/2002 of E.I.COURT, KOZHIKODE .................... APPELLANT/APPLICANT: ------------------------------------- MOHAMMED IQBAL, ZAIGAM WOOD INDUSTRIES, BADADKA ROAD, KUMBALA, KASARGOD. BY ADV. SRI.N.SUBRAMANIAM SRI.M.S.NARAYANAN RESPONDENT: RESPONDENT: ------------------------ THE REGIONAL DIRECTOR, E.S.I. CORPORATION, THRISSUR. BY ADV. SRI.P.SANKARANKUTTY NAIR THIS INSURANCE APPEALS HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 28/02/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: K. PADMANABHAN NAIR ,J. ------------------------------------------------- Ins. Appeal No.27 OF 2004 ------------------------------------------------- Dated, this the 28th day of February, 2008 JUDGMENT This appeal is filed by the owner of Zaigam Wood Industries, Badaka Road, Kumbla, Kasaragod challenging an order passed by the Employees' Insurance Court by which it dismissed a petition filed by the appellant for a declaration that the establishment is not coverable. 2. The Manager of local office of Employees' State Insurance Corporation, Kasaragod inspected appellant's establishment on 10.1.2001 and prepared Ext.D4 report in which it was stated that on the date of inspection he found 13 employees working in the saw mill and manufacturing process was carried out using electric power. On the strength of Ext.D4 report respondent Corporation claimed contribution from the appellant employer. Appellant disputed his liability. But the Corporation maintained a stand that the establishment of the appellant is liable to be covered under the provisions of the Employees' State Insurance Act (for short 'the Act'). So the appellant filed a petition under Section 75 of the Act for a declaration that his establishment is not liable to be covered. 3. The one and only contention raised in the application was that the appellant never employed ten or more workers and he employed only six persons as employees and hence the manufacturing place is not a factory come within the Ins.Appeal No.27/2004 2 definition of factory in the Act. Respondent Corporation filed a counter contending that an inspection was conducted in the factory on 10.1.2001 by the Manager of its local office and he found that 13 employees were working and power consumed machineries like band saw, re saw, plainer and grinder, etc. were used for manufacturing purposes. It was also contended that name, designation, length of service, etc. of 13 employees were stated in the report which was counter signed by the appellant. It was contended that in spite of notice, the appellant did not produce the general ledger, cash book or vouchers. The averment that the appellant was employed only six employees was denied. Employees' Insurance Court on evidence found that appellant had employed 13 persons as contended by the respondent Corporation and dismissed the application. Challenging that finding the appellant employer has filed this appeal. 4. Though the appellant contended that he had never employed 13 employees he had not produced any records to prove that fact. In spite of notice, the day book, general ledger, etc. were not produced. The person who prepared Ext.D4 report was examined as DW1. He gave oral evidence to the effect that he saw 13 persons working in the factory and the machines were operated with the aid of electric power. He also deposed that he prepared Ext.D4 report which was attested by the appellant employer. 5. I have perused Ext.D4 report which contains the seal and signature of the appellant. Though the appellant had raised a contention that he had not Ins.Appeal No.27/2004 3 affixed his signature in Ext.D4, during cross-examination he admitted that the signature in Ext.D4 was of him. Appellant did not offer any explanation how his signature happened to be affixed in Ext.D4 report. Ext.D4 gives the details regarding length of service, salary, etc. of each and every employee and also their designation. It is very difficult to believe that all these details were falsely written by the Inspector in Ext.D4 report. The documentary and oral evidences clearly establish that in the establishment run by the appellant manufacturing process was being carried out using power and he had employed more than ten employees. So the establishment of the appellant will come within the definition of factory in the Act. So the finding of the court below that establishment of the appellant is liable to be covered under the Act and he is bound to comply with the provisions of the Act is correct and only to be confirmed. Court below directed the respondent Corporation to assess the contribution after giving an opportunity of being heard to the appellant. There is no merit in the appeal and it is only to be dismissed. In the result, appeal is dismissed. I.A.No.1748/2004 in Ins.Appeal No.27/2004 will stand dismissed. K. PADMANABHAN NAIR, JUDGE. cks