IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.N.KRISHNAN FRIDAY, THE 7TH NOVEMBER 2008 / 16TH KARTHIKA 1930 Ins.APP.No. 48 of 2007(F) ------------------------ IC.34/2002 of EMPLOYEES INSURANCE COURT, ALAPPUZHA .................... APPELLANT/RESPONDENT ---------------------------------------- THE REGIONAL DIRECTOR, E.S.I. CORPORATION, REGIONAL OFFICE, THRISSUR. BY ADV. SRI.T.V.AJAYAKUMAR RESPONDENT(S): APPLICANT ------------------------------- S.SANJAY PRABHU, PROPRIETOR, GAYATHRI RESTAURANT (VEG), WARRIAM ROAD, PALLIMUKKU, KOCHI-35. ADV. SRI.E.K.NANDAKUMAR FOR R1 SRI.A.K.JAYASANKAR NAMBIAR FOR R1 SRI.K.JOHN MATHAI FOR R1 SRI.P.BENNY THOMAS FOR R1 SRI.ANIL D. NAIR FOR R1 THIS INSURANCE APPEALS HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 07/11/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: M.N. KRISHNAN, J. = = = = = = = = = = = = = = INS.APPEAL NO. 48 OF 2007 = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = Dated this the 7th day of November, 2008. J U D G M E N T This appeal is preferred by the Employees' State Insurance Corporation against the judgment of the Employees Insurance Court, Alappuzha in I.C.34/02. The application was filed before the said Court for a declaration that the establishment is not liable to be covered under the E.S.I. Act. The case of the Corporation is that there is a restaurant as well as a boarding house in which seven persons and five persons were respectively employed and it is owned and managed by the father and son and it has got the clipping of a joint venture and are interdependent and therefore these units are to be clubbed together and treated as one. The name of the lodge is Triveni lodge and that of the restaurant is Gayathri restaurant. The restaurant is functioning with the door No.39/2512 and the lodge is functioning in door No.39/2517. The learned E.I. Court has observed that the principles that have to be followed in the case and later considered the factual matrix. Ins. Appeal 48 OF 2007 -:2:- 2. The contention of the E.I. Corporation was that there was only a separating wall between the restaurant and the lodge and there is a gate which opens up and gives entry from the lodge to the restaurant and vice versa. It has also stated that people from the lodge can come and take food in the restaurant and further that both are managed by the father and son and so they are interconnected and they are having uniformity of interest and so it can be clubbed together. 3. On the contra the establishment would contend that it is not correct to state that both are situated adjacently and there are other buildings in between the two and it is not correct to say that it is only separated by a wall with an opening. They also produced a sketch prepared by an expert engineer which was considered by the E.I. Court and had came to a conclusion that the sketch prepared by the said engineer and produced by the establishment appears to be more probable and acceptable. It was also argued by the E.S.I. Corporation that when the inspector went for inspection of the documents, they were perused from the room in the lodge. It is explained by the Ins. Appeal 48 OF 2007 -:3:- proprietors of the establishment that as there was crowd in the restaurant they were asked to come to the lodge wherein those documents were examined. It is true that there is a lodge and restaurant run by the father and son. Merely because the relationship is that of father and son one cannot jump to the conclusion that they are part and parcel of the same unit. It has to be stated that people run restaurants and lodges and there will be arrangement between them regarding the ownership and running of the same and account books are maintained separately. Just because there is a relationship of father and son I think one cannot club it for the purpose of coverage under the E.S.I Act. Further the entire points had been dealt with threadbare by the E.I. Court and it has come to the conclusion that the ingredients necessary for clubbing has not been satisfied in this case. It is a strong finding on foundation of fact and I do not find any substantial question of law that arise for consideration in this appeal. Therefore the appeal lacks merit and it is dismissed. M.N. KRISHNAN, JUDGE. ul/-