IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.N.KRISHNAN THURSDAY, THE 30TH OCTOBER 2008 / 8TH KARTHIKA 1930 Ins.APP.No. 47 of 2007() ------------------------ IC.63/2004 of EI COURT, PALAKKAD .................... APPELLANT/OPPOSITE PARTY -------------------------------------- THE REGIONAL DIRECTOR, E.S.I. CORPORATION, PANCHDEEP BHAVAN, NORTH SWARAJ ROUND, THRISSUR-20. BY ADV. SRI.T.V.AJAYAKUMAR RESPONDENT/APPLICANT ------------------------ M/S.NAS FISHERIES (P) LTD., 22/1173 A, N.H.47, EDACOCHIN, COCHIN-6. 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 APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 30/10/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: M.N.KRISHNAN, J. -------------------------- Ins. Appeal No. 47 OF 2007 --------------------- Dated this the 30th day of October, 2008 JUDGMENT This appeal is preferred against the order of the Employees' Insurance court, Palakkad, in I.C. 63/04. The question involved there was assailing of Exts.A1 and A4 notices for the period 2/97 to 3/99. The EI court considered the question and held that the claim for the period prior to 15.1.99 is barred by limitation. It was so held on account of the Full Bench decision reported in ESI corporation v. Excel Glasses Ltd. [2003 (3) KLT 42]. But the Apex court in the decision reported in ESI Corporation v. Santhakumar [2007 (1) KLT 133] reversed the finding of the Full Bench decision of this court. The Apex court held that section 45A and 77(1A)(b) does not prescribe any limitation so far as the Corporation is concerned to initiate proceedings against the establishment but held that it would be applicable if the Corporation approaches a court for the relief. The decision of this court was set aside. But the Apex court also held that in such cases concept of reasonable time can be read into the provision also is a matter that has to be considered. Therefore Ins. Appeal 47/07 2 one cannot outright by turn down the contention of the Corporation that it is not barred by limitation. The matter requires reconsideration at the hands of the EI court in the light of the enunciated principles laid down in ESI Corporation v. Santhakumar [2007 (1) KLT 133]. Therefore the order under challenge is set aside and the matter is remitted back to the EI court for fresh consideration in the light of the said decision. Parties are permitted to adduce both documentary as well as oral evidence in support of their respective contentions and the EI court thereafter shall dispose of the matter in accordance with law. The EI court shall issue notice to the parties intimating their date of appearance. M.N.KRISHNAN, JUDGE vps Ins. Appeal 47/07 3