IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.SIRI JAGAN WEDNESDAY, THE 9TH APRIL 2008 / 20TH CHAITHRA 1930 WP(C).No. 12276 of 2008(J) -------------------------- PETITIONER: ------------ JYOTHI NIKETAN WOMEN'S COLLEGE, KOLLAM REPRESENTED BY THE ADMINISTRATOR, PROF: MILTON NETTO, PEACE VILLA, ERAVIPURAM P.O. KOLLAM. BY ADV. SRI.K.KARTHIKEYA PANICKER SMT.DAYA K. PANICKER RESPONDENTS: ------------- 1. THE JOINT DIRECTOR, DIVISIONAL OFFICE (KOLLAM), EMPLOYEES STATE INSURANCE CORPORATION KURUMPELLIL AVENUE, POLAYATHODE, KOLLAM-691021. 2. THE INSURANCE INSPECTOR, INSPECTION OFFICE (KOLLAM), E.S.I. CORPORATION, J.P.TOURIST HOME, PAIKADA ROAD, KOLLAM. BY SHRI.P.SANKARANKUTTY NAIR THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 09/04/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: S.SIRI JAGAN, J. ================== W.P.(C).No.12276 of 2008 ================== Dated this the 9th day of April, 2008 J U D G M E N T The petitioner, allegedly an establishment imparting tuition to the students of economically and socially weaker sections of the society, is challenging Ext.P6 order of the 1st respondent, whereby the petitioner establishment has been ordered to be covered under the Employees' State Insurance Act, 1948 (“the Act” for short) and the petitioner was directed to comply with the provisions of the Act. The contention of the petitioner is that the respondents have no power under the Act to issue an order like Ext.P6. According to the petitioner, the respondents have to raise a dispute before the Employees' Insurance Court under Section 75 of the Employees' State Insurance Act, without which they cannot pass an order like Ext.P6. I am not satisfied that the legal position is as stated by the counsel for the petitioner. As per the Scheme of the Employees' State Insurance Act, it is for the Employees' State Insurance Corporation to decide the question as to whether an establishment is liable to be covered under the Act w.p.c.12276/08 2 in the first instance. If the petitioner is aggrieved by any orders directing coverage of the petitioner, the remedy of the petitioner lies in filing an application under Section 75 of the Act before the Employees' Insurance Court. In the above circumstances, this writ petition is disposed of without prejudice to the right of the petitioner to challenge Ext.P6 in an Insurance Case to be filed before the Employees' Insurance Court. Sd/- sdk+ S.SIRI JAGAN, JUDGE ///True copy/// P.A. to Judge