IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.N.KRISHNAN MONDAY, THE 30TH JUNE 2008 / 9TH ASHADHA 1930 Ins.APP.No. 18 of 2005() ------------------------ IC.37/2003 of E.I.COURT, KOZHIKODE .................... APPELLANT/APPLICANT: ------------------------------------ SUMESH BABU P., S/O. SURESH BABU P., SKATHIVEL CHAKKITTA EDAVAZHI, P.O.ERANHIPALAM, CALICUT 6, PROPRIETOR, M/S.STAR SUPER POWER LAUNDRY, ERANHIPALAM, CALICUT-6. BY ADV.SRI.A.M.SHAFFIQUE (SR.) SRI.K.JOHN MATHAI SRI.E.K.NANDAKUMAR RESPONDENT:RESPONDENT: ---------------------------------------------- THE REGIONAL DIRECTOR, ESI CORPORATION, THRISSUR. BY ADV. SRI.P.SANKARANKUTTY NAIR, SC, ESI CORPN – R1 THIS INSURANCE APPEALS HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 30/06/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: ORDER ON I.A.NO.1236/2005 IN INS.APPEAL NO.18/2005 DISMISSED 30/06/2008 SD/- M.N.KRISHNAN, JUDGE /TRUE COPY/ P.A.TO JUDGE Kss M.N. KRISHNAN, J. = = = = = = = = = = = = = = INS.APPEAL NO. 18 OF 2005 = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = Dated this the 30th day of June, 2008. J U D G M E N T This appeal is preferred against the judgment of the Employees Insurance Court, Kozhikode in E.I.C.37/03. The appellant has preferred this appeal against the finding that the establishment is covered under the E.S.I. Act with effect from 28.4.2001. The name and style of the appellant's establishment is M/s Star Super Power Laundry, Eranhipalam, Calicut-6. According to the appellant it has never employed more than nine persons and it has never used any power so as to make it a manufacturing process. 2. On the other hand the ESI Corporation would contend that there was an inspection of the establishment on 26.4.2001 and 9.5.01 and it was found that 11 persons were employed for wages there and manufacturing was carried on with the aid of power. The appellant herein endorsed the truthfulness of the above aspects and affixed his signature is the contention of the E.S.I Corporation. In order to make Ins. Appeal 18 OF 2005 -:2:- them liable under the E.S.I Act it has to be established that they had more than 10 employees and they were using power. 3. Learned counsel for the appellant would very strongly argue before me that the evidence of PW1 to 5 and documents Exts.X1 to X10 would establish that the finding is wrong. At the out set I may state that the person who had inspected the establishment was examined as DW1. According to him he found 11 persons were employed for wages and also one Hydro extractor and one electric iron operated with electricity were being used there. He collected the names of the persons employed and according to him it has been endorsed by the appellant. He had been examined at length and according to the Court below there is nothing to shake his evidence. 4. Another Insurance Inspector was examined as DW2 who visited the establishment on 27.8.02. He would depose that 10 persons were employed for wages. He has also submitted the equipments used for the purpose. The appellant would contend that there was never more than nine employees and the pressing work is done with charcoal Ins. Appeal 18 OF 2005 -:3:- and coconut shells. According to him the names shown as Chandran, Sivaraman, Sathyapalan, Sl. Nos.9, 10 and 11 have no connection with the establishment. He would say that Chandran is the uncle of his father, Sivaraman is the cousin of his father and Sathyapalan is an employee attached to another establishment namely, Snow White. He would further depose that he was not conversant with English and his endorsement as seen in the Ext.D1 was procured without understanding its implications. The Court below found that in cross-examination that appellant has never taken up a contention that Chandran was not his employee. It has also been brought out that all the communications addressed to the E.S.I Corporation were in English. When a question was put to him that why the name of the establishment as Power Laundry was put, he would say that he does not know the intention. The Court below perused the evidence of PW1 and was not happy with the same to accept it. Sathyapalan was examined as PW2 and he would submit that he is an employee of the company, Snow white. The Snow white belongs to none other than a close relative of the appellant and the Tribunal found that the documents Exts.X1 to X10 Ins. Appeal 18 OF 2005 -:4:- was only created with the sole purpose of wriggling out of the difficulties. The Court below found that Exts.X1 to X10 are not verified by any statutory authority that they are not maintained in the usual course of business but written up at a stretch for the purpose of this case. The Court below therefore on an over all analysis of the entire materials available and in the light of the categoric endorsement made by the appellant in Ext.D1 came to a conclusion that it is an establishment liable to be covered under the E.S.I. Act as it has more than 10 employees and use of power. There is no perversity, illegality or irregularity in the appreciation of evidence which can be classified as sufficient to raise a substantial question of law. Therefore I do not find any convincing reason to interfere with the decision rendered by the Court below and so the appeal fails and the same is dismissed. M.N. KRISHNAN, JUDGE. ul/-