IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.PADMANABHAN NAIR TUESDAY, THE 26TH FEBRUARY 2008 / 7TH PHALGUNA 1929 Ins.APP.No. 5 of 2004() -------------------------------- IC.43/1997 of E.I.COURT, KOLLAM .................... APPELLANT/OPPOSITE PARTIES: -------------------------------------------- 1. THE REGIONAL DIRECTOR, E.S.I. CORPORATION, THRISSUR. 2. THE RECOVERY OFFICER, E.S.I. CORPORATION, THRISSUR. BY ADV. SRI.T.V.AJAYAKUMAR RESPONDENTS: APPLICANT: -------------------------------------- THE PRESIDENT, THE TAXI DRIVERS CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETY, KARAMKULAM, TRIVANDRUM. BY ADV. SRI.K.G.PAVITHRAN THIS INSURANCE APPEALS HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 26/02/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: K. PADMANABHAN NAIR, J. = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = INS. APPEAL NO.5 OF 2004 = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = Dated this the 26th day of February, 2008 J U D G M E N T -------------------- The Regional Director, Employees State Insurance Corporation, Thrissur, is the appellant. He is challenging the order passed by the Employees Insurance Court in I.C. No.43 of 1997 by which the EI Court has allowed an application filed by the respondent Society. 2. Officer of the appellant issued a demand notice to the respondent claiming contribution. That was objected to by the respondent. The appellant insisted for payment, but the respondent did not pay the contribution. Respondent filed an application before the EI Court contending that the respondent Society had employed only 3 persons as per the approved pattern by the Registrar of Co-operative Societies. It was also contended that respondent had availed a loan of Fourty lakhs rupees for purchasing vehicles, but there was delay in getting permit and the respondent was compelled to repay the loan amount. It was averred that there were four INS. APPEAL NO.5 OF 2004 -: 2 :- categories of members such as Class A to D. Class 3 members are attending the duties of Driver, Conductor, Cleaner, Clerk, etc., and they were paid bata alone and they were paid no wages. It was further averred that such members cannot be called as employees of the Society and there was no sanctioned post of Driver, Conductor, etc. Appellant contended that the respondent itself had filed an application in Form No.1 before the appellant in which the respondent had admitted that the Society was employing 51 persons from 1996 onwards. It was contended that in view of the admission made by the respondent the Society was covered under the provisions of the Employees State Insurance Act and demand was made for contribution. 3. At the time of hearing a contention was raised by the respondent to the effect that the Society is situated in an area wherein the provisions of the Act have no application. Appellant produced a Notification to show that the area in question was covered. Relying on a statement made by the respondent, the EI Court took a view that the Society was situated in a place where the provisions of the Act had no INS. APPEAL NO.5 OF 2004 -: 3 :- application and allowed the application filed by the respondent. Challenging that that order, this appeal lis filed. 4. Learned Standing Counsel appearing for the appellant has submitted that no contention was raised in the application that the Society was situated in a place where the provisions of the Act were not made applicable. It is argued that by Notification dated 24.8.1977 issued by the competent authority the place where the Society was situated was also brought under the provisions of the Act. It is argued that the appellant produced a list of implemented centres and also the Gazette Notification by which the Society was brought under the provisions of the Act. But the EI Court returned the same and allowed the application. Learned counsel for the appellant has produced the Gazette Notification SRO No.763/1977 dated 24.8.1977 which would show that the provisions of the Act were made applicable to Pallichal, Athiyannur, Kottukal and Karakulam of Thiruvananthapuram District with effect from 24.8.1977. So the finding of the EI Court that the provisions of the Act are not applicable to the place where the Society was situated is illegal and liable to be set aside. The EI Court has INS. APPEAL NO.5 OF 2004 -: 4 :- not considered any other aspects arising for consideration. So the matter requires reconsideration. For that purpose, the case has to back. In the result, the appeal is allowed. The finding of the EI Court that the respondent Society was situated in a place where the provisions of the Act have no application is hereby set aside. The case is remanded to the EI Court. The EI Court shall take I.C. No.43 of 1997 back to file and dispose of the same afresh in accordance with law after giving opportunity to both sides to adduce evidence, if so advised. K. PADMANABHAN NAIR, JUDGE. vsv K. PADMANABHAN NAIR, J. ===================== INS. APPEAL NO.5 OF 2004 ===================== J U D G M E N T ------------------------------------------- 26TH FEBRUARY, 2008