IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.N.KRISHNAN MONDAY, THE 7TH DECEMBER 2009 / 16TH AGRAHAYANA 1931 Ins.APP.No. 51 of 2008() -------------------------------------- IC.69/2003 of EMPLOYEES INSURANCE COURT, ALAPPUZHA .................... APPELLANT (S)/APPLICANT:- -------------------------- SHIJO T. PAUL, PROPRIETOR, IWIND SYSTEMS, MALAMURY, PULLUVAZHY, PERUMBAVOOR BY ADVS.MR.C.ANIL KUMAR SMT.A.K.PREETHA RESPONDENT(S): OPPOSITE PARTY ------------------------- THE REGIONAL DIRECTOR, EMPLOYEES STATE INSURANCE CORPORATION, PANCHADEEP BHAVAN, THRISSUR. R1 BY ADV. MR.T.V.AJAYAKUMAR, SC, ESI CORPN. THIS INSURANCE APPEALS HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 07/12/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: ORDER ON IA. NO.2423/2008 IN INAP. NO.51/2008 DISMISSED 07.12.2009 SD/- M.N.KRISHNAN, JUDGE TRUE COPY P.A. TO JUDGE tss M.N. KRISHNAN, J. = = = = = = = = = = = = = = INS.APPEAL NO. 51 OF 2008 = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = Dated this the 7th day of December, 2009. J U D G M E N T This appeal is preferred against the order of the Employees Insurance Court, Alappuzha in I.C.69/03. An application was filed before the Court below seeking for a declaration that the applicant's establishment is not liable to be covered under the E.S.I.Act. It was contended that there was not more than 9 employees at any point of time and some ITC students were permitted to take practical training in motor workshop from there and that is why the insurance official was able to find 11 persons and so the order passed by the Corporation ordering coverage of the institution was sought to be set aside. The learned Insurance Court after exhaustive consideration of the materials held against the applicant and it is against that decision the appplicant has come up in appeal. The two substantial questions of law raised are as follows. INS.APPEAL NO. 51 OF 2008 -:2:- “(A) Whether the findings of the E.I.Court are based on the evidence on record? (B) Whether the students undergoing training in the establishment can be treated as workmen under the Employees State Insurance Act for the purpose of coverage?” 2. It is the definite contention of the establishment that there can be never more than 9 employees in the establishment. According to it from the neighboring ITC institution some students have come up for training and they had been counted along with the employees and thereby the Corporation had directed coverage of the institution. DW1 an insurance inspector visited the establishment on 9.5.2001. He was able to find 11 persons employed for wages in the establishment. He prepared a report and the said report was signed by the supervisor of the establishment. DW1 had interviewed the persons, obtained their names, parentage and address, nature of work period of service, wages drawn and also their signatures. It is there INS.APPEAL NO. 51 OF 2008 -:3:- after the supervisor of the establishment counter signed it. Now the contention is that from the neighbouring institution some students have come for training. Except the assertion there are no materials produced before the Court to show that who are all those trainees and their particulars. On the contra a respectable officer of the Corporation had visited the establishment and in the presence of their supervisor he counted the number and given all particulars regarding the employees. Such a report establishes the presence of 11 employees, employed for wages and it has become final and that decision does not suffer from any material infirmity or on misappreciation of evidence. Therefore the questions of law formulated by the counsel for the appellants has to be found against the establishment and it has to be held that the finding of the E.I.Court does not suffer from any infirmity. So the appeal lacks merit and the same is dismissed. M.N. KRISHNAN, JUDGE. ul/-