IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.N.KRISHNAN THURSDAY, THE 30TH OCTOBER 2008 / 8TH KARTHIKA 1930 Ins.APP.No. 49 of 2007() ------------------------ IC.105/2003 of EMPLOYEES INSURANCE COURT, ALAPPUZHA .................... APPELLANTS/RESPONDENTS: ------------------------------------------- 1. THE REGIONAL DIRECTOR, E.S.I. CORPORATION, PANCHADEEP BHAVAN, N.S.ROUND, THRISSUR-20. 2. THE RECOVERY OFFICER, E.S.I. CORPORATION, THRISSUR-20. BY ADV. SRI.T.V.AJAYAKUMAR RESPONDENT/ APPLICANT: ------------------------- HOTEL K.K.INTERNATIONAL, ERNAKULAM, COCHIN-682 016, REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING PARTNER, L.KUNJUKUNJU. ADV. SRI.A.V.XAVIER FOR R1 THIS INSURANCE APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 30/10/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: M.N.KRISHNAN, J. -------------------------- Ins. Appeal No. 49 OF 2007 --------------------- Dated this the 30th day of October, 2008 JUDGMENT This appeal is preferred against the judgment of the Employees' Insurance court, Alappuzha, in I.C. 105/03. It was an application filed for a declaration that the applicant is not liable to pay contribution. The EI court in the light of the decision of this court in ESI corporation v. Excel Glasses Ltd. [2003 (3) KLT 42] held that there is bar of limitation and therefore passed consequential orders. It is against that decision, the present appeal is filed. The Apex court in the decision reported in ESI Corporation v. Santhakumar [2007 (1) KLT 133] held that there is no limitation for a Corporation to initiate action against an establishment under section 45A or Section 77(1A)(b) of the ESI Act. The Apex court also held that there must be a consideration of the concept of reasonable time. Since the matter has not been considered in the light of the above declaration of law by the Apex court, the matter requires reconsideration at the hands of the EI court. Therefore the judgment under challenge is set aside and the matter is remitted back to the EI Court with a direction to consider the Ins.Appeal No.49/07 2 question in the light of the enunciated principles laid down in ESI Corporation v. Santhakumar [2007 (1) KLT 133]. Both parties are permitted to adduce documentary as well as oral evidence in support of their respective contentions and the EI court thereafter shall dispose of the matter in accordance with law. The EI court shall issue notice to the parties intimating the date of hearing. M.N.KRISHNAN, JUDGE vps Ins.Appeal No.49/07 3