IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.N.KRISHNAN THURSDAY, THE 3RD JULY 2008 / 12TH ASHADHA 1930 Ins.APP.No. 45 of 2004() ---------------------------------- IC.54/2002 of ESI COURT, PALAKKAD .................... APPELLANT/APPLICANT: ------------------------------------- E.G.GRANITE METAL CRUSHER UNIT, MALAMEL, ARACKAL VILLAGE, PATHANAPURAM TALUK, KOLLAM DIST., REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING PARTNER, SRI.V.I.KRIACHAN. BY ADV. SRI.A.M.SHAFFIQUE (SR.) SMT.PRIYA MAHESH SRI.K.JOHN MATHAI RESPONDENTS/OPPOSITE PARTY: ---------------------------------------------------- E.S.I. CORPORATION, NORTH SWARAJ ROUND, TRICHUR. BY ADV. SRI.P.SANKARANKUTTY NAIR FOR R1 THIS INSURANCE APPEALS HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 03/07/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: Ins. Appeal no. 45/2004 ORDER IN I.A.No. 2377/2004 IN INSURANCE APPEAL NO. 45/2004 DISMISSED. SD/- M.N. KRISHNAN, JUDGE 03.07.2008 /TRUE COPY/ P.A. TO JUDGE M.N. KRISHNAN, J ------------------------- INSURANCE APPEAL No. 45 OF 2004 ------------------------------------------ Dated this the 3rd day of July, 2008 J U D G M E N T This appeal is preferred against the Order of the Employees Insurance Court, Palakkad in I.C No. 54/2002. By the said order, the court below found that the application is without merits and dismissed. The point that is to be considered is whether the applicant before the ESI Court is covered by the Rules of the Sate Insurance Act for the reason that it has employed more than 10 persons. The contention of the applicant is that there had never been more than 10 employees where as the ESI Corporation would contend that 12 persons were found to be working for wages. The Insurance Inspector RW1 inspected the factory. According to the applicant the Insurance Inspector obtained two blank papers and later using one of them fabricated a false document and it is Ext. A3. The ESI Court has analysed the entire matter threadbare. It is AW5 who had written the names. It is deposed by him that he has given the names as instructed by the owner and he could not deny the fact that they were not permanent workers.After the notice was Ins.Appeal No. 45/2004 -2- issued, the owner filed a representation claiming exemption under the ESI Act on the basis that had taken workman compensation policy. It is no where stated therein that a blank paper have been obtained and a document fabricated so as to bring the applicant firm within the ambit of the Employee State Insurance Act. The Employees Insurance Court also found that the applicant never denied the employment of 12 persons and would contended that 7 are regular employees and the remaining persons are substituted. But the Insurance Inspector who had inspected the factory had seen 12 employees in 2002. The learned counsel for the appellant would submit before me that mere submission of list is not sufficient and their identity has to be established. So far as this case is concerned, the Insurance Inspector visited the premises and as dictated by the owner AW5 had given the names of the persons and therefore there cannot be any dispute regarding identification of the persons. So a reading of the entire evidence would show that the Employees State Insurance Act has only approached the matter in the correct perceptive. Under the Employees State Insurance Act, unless there is a substantial question of law an appeal will not lie. Here what is attempted to be raised as the Ins.Appeal No. 45/2004 -3- substantial question of law is only a question of fact. No substantial question of law really arises and therefore it has to be held that the appeal is devoid of merits and the judgment does not call for any interference. Appeal is dismissed. M.N. KRISHNAN, JUDGE vkm