IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE J.B.KOSHY & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.N.RAVINDRAN MONDAY, THE 30TH JUNE 2008 / 9TH ASHADHA 1930 MFA.No. 235 of 2003(C) -------------------------------- E.I.C.15/1997 of E.I.COURT, KOZHIKODE .................... APPELLANT: APPLICANT ----------------------------------- M/S. SARASWATHI WEAVING FACTORY, AZHIKODE, KANNUR -9 REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING PARTNER SUNIT GUPTA, S/O. D.N.GUPTA, AGED 43, RESIDING AT THILLERI, MILITARY HOSPITAL ROAD, KANNUR. BY ADV. SRI.V.RAMKUMAR NAMBIAR RESPONDENT/ RESPONDENT ------------------------------------------ THE REGIONAL DIRECTOR, EMPLOYEES' STATE INSURANCE CORPORATION, THRISSUR. BY ADV. SRI.P.SANKARANKUTTY NAIR THIS MISC. FIRST APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 30/06/2008,THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: ORDER ON C.M.P. NO.1073/2003 IN MFA. NO.235/2003 DISMISSED 30/06/2008. SD/- J.B.KOSHY, JUDGE SD/- P.N.RAVINDRAN, JUDGE // TRUE COPY // Rs/ J.B.KOSHY & P.N.RAVINDRAN, JJ. -------------------------------------- M.F.A.No.235 OF 2003 ------------------------------------- Dated 30th June, 2008 JUDGMENT Koshy,J . Appellant is a partnership firm engaged in the manufacture of handloom clothes. It is a covered establishment under the Employees' State Insurance Scheme. On inspection conducted in the factory of the appellant it was found that the appellant has not paid the contribution on the job works charges and maintenance charges for the period from April, 1994 to September, 1996 and, therefore, contribution was demanded with interest for the above amount. When demand was received for contribution to the above, appellant approached the Employees' Insurance Court. According to the appellant, job work is done outside the factory premises and maintenance is not a work of the establishment. The E.I. Court considered the evidence and found that so called job works charges are paid as remuneration of the work done on piece rate basis and therefore, it will constitute wages as per Section 2 (22) of the Employees' State Insurance Act and therefore, demand of contribution in respect of job works charges is legal and proper and dismissed the application under section 75 read with section 77 of the Employees' State Insurance Act. An appeal will lie only on a substantial MFA.235/2003 2 question law. Here, there is no substantial question of law as decision of the E.I. Court is based on evidence adduced in this case. Since there is no substantial question of law, we dismiss this appeal. J.B.KOSHY JUDGE P.N.RAVINDRAN JUDGE tks