IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.N.KRISHNAN WEDNESDAY, THE 10TH DECEMBER 2008 / 19TH AGRAHAYANA 1930 Ins.APP.No. 53 of 2007(F) ------------------------------ IC.105/2002 of EMPLOYEES INSURANCE COURT, ALAPPUZHA .................... APPELLANTS/RESPONDENTS -------------------------------------- 1. THE REGIONAL DIRECTOR, ESI CORPORATION, PANCHADEEP BHAVAN, THRISSUR- 20. 2. THE RECOVERY OFFICER, ESI CORPN., PANCHADEEP BHAVAN, THRISSUR 20. BY ADV. SMT.T.D.RAJALAKSHMY, SC, ESI CORPN. RESPONDENT(S): APPLICANT ---------------------------------- VRINDAVAN HOTELS (P) LTD., DWARAKA HOTEL BUILDING, M.G.ROAD, ERNAKULAM, COCHIN-16, REPRESENTED BY ITS DIRECTOR, SESHAGIRI RAO. ADV. SRI.A.V.XAVIER FOR R1 THIS INSURANCE APPEALS HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 10/12/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: M.N. KRISHNAN, J. = = = = = = = = = = = = = = INS.APPEAL NO. 53 OF 2007 = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = Dated this the 10th day of December, 2008. J U D G M E N T This appeal is preferred against the judgment of the Employees Insurance Court, Alappuzha in I.C.105/02. It was an application filed seeking a declaration that Sri. Sesha Giri Rao, the Director of applicant company is not an employee coverable under the E.S.I. Act. The E.I. Court after consideration of the entire materials held that Sesha Giri Rao is not an employee coverable under the E.S.I. Act and the action of the respondent for pushing back coverage to September,1997 and assessing and demanding contribution from 9/97 to 2/98 are unsustainable. The question of law raised in the memorandum of appeal is as follows: “Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case E.I. Court was right in holding that Shri Seshagiri Rao is not an employee without properly appreciating the evidence?” Ins. Appeal 53 OF 2007 -:2:- 2. I am afraid whether such a question of law is there at all in this case for the reason that when materials are placed before a competent Court and it analyzes the materials and arrives at a decision, unless it is grossly perverse or illegal one cannot interfere with the same and just because it is felt that there can be a different interpretation one cannot say that it is a substantial question of law. But for the sake of satisfying my conscience I may advert to the facts analysed to find out whether there is any perversity. 3. PW2 is this Sesha Giri Rao. He had clearly deposed before Court that he is not working in any post or discharging any duty for wages and that he had received remuneration only as a Director of the company. Suppose he had been paid remuneration for the discharge of any duties then it will become the remuneration to an employee and in such a contingency one can call him as an employee as well. But so far as a case is concerned where only one is a Director and remuneration is paid to all the Directors just because they are Directors of the Company they cannot be classified as employees of the company for the reason that Ins. Appeal 53 OF 2007 -:3:- they are the owners of the company. So in order to further satisfy, the evidence of the insurance Corporation official was also analysed. In paragraph 9 the Court below had extracted questions and answers which would indicate that the said witness had never seen any documents wherein Sesha Giri Rao is described as an Executive Director. He has not seen any document describing him as a working Director. The only document he had seen is with an endorsement Director's remuneration. So the Court below found that describing Sesha Giri Rao as a working Director is without substance and without materials. 4. In paragraph 10 also the E.I. Court considered regarding the signature dated 11.7.01. We are concerned with the period between 9/97 to 2/98 and the Court below rightly found that materials are lacking to attribute the status of an employee as well on a Director of the Company so as to attract him for making the establishment liable under the provisions of the E.I. Court. So there is nothing wrong in the finding of the Court below. 5. Learned counsel for the appellant had brought to my notice a decision of the Apex Court also about which Ins. Appeal 53 OF 2007 -:4:- there cannot be any quarrel. When a person is a Director or Managing Director and he is specifically entrusted a task of conducting certain works or assigned any work and remuneration is paid to him though he is the owner he will be in the status of an employee as well. But so far as this case is concerned except the fact that Sesha Giri Rao is found to be a Director there is nothing to show that he was a working Director or Managing Director or a person specifically entrusted with the task of doing any particular job. Therefore I do not find any mistake committed by the E.I.Court in arriving at the decision and excluding the coverage period from 9/97 to 2/98 and there is much less any substantial question of law involved in this case so as to entertain this appeal. Therefore the appeal lacks merit and the same is dismissed but without costs. M.N. KRISHNAN, JUDGE. ul/-