IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.T.RAVIKUMAR THURSDAY, THE 4TH NOVEMBER 2010 / 13TH KARTHIKA 1932 WP(C).No. 27226 of 2010(C) --------------------------------------- PETITIONER(S): ----------------------- UNIQUE WOOD SYSTEMS,MUDICKAL P.O. PERUMBAVOOR, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT., PIN - 683 547, REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING PARTNER MR.T.A.ABDULLA. BY ADVS. SRI.SHAJI CHIRAYATH SMT.JIJI M. VARKEY RESPONDENT(S): -------------------------- 1. EMPLOYEES STATE INSURANCE CORPORATION, (KERLA), REGIONAL OFFICE PANCHADEEP BHAVAN, NORTH SWARAJ ROUND, THRISSUR DISTRICT PIN-680 020. 2. DEPUTY DIRECTOR, EMPLOYEES STATE INSURANCE CORPORATION, SUB REGIONAL OFFICE (ERNAKULAM), MALU'S COMPLEX, ST. FRANCIS CHURCH ROAD, KALOOR, ERNAKULAM DIST. PIN - 682017. R1 & R2 BY ADV. SRI.P.SANKARANKUTTY NAIR, SC, ESI CORPN THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 04/11/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: sts C.T.RAVIKUMAR, J. --------------------------------------- W.P(C)No.27226 of 2010 ---------------------------------------- Dated 4th November, 2010 JUDGMENT The petitioner is a registered partnership firm engaged in the manufacturing of core veneer, a raw material for plywood manufacturing. This writ petition has been filed challenging Ext.P5 order passed by the second respondent. Ext.P5 is an order passed under Section 45A of the Employees State Insurance Act, 1948 (for short `the Act' only). As per the same, the second respondent ordered as hereunder:- “For the above reasons, I, E.D.RAVEENDRAN, DEPUTY DIRECTOR, in exercise of the powers delegated to me by the ESI Corporation think fit and accordingly order that contributions on omitted wages totalling Rs.8363/- (Rupees Eight thousand three hundred and sixty three only) for the period from 2006-2007 are finally determined plus interest up to the date of payment and you as one of the principal employers are hereby ordered to pay the above amount together with interest payable at the rate of 15% per annum within a period of 15 days from the date of this order failing which this shall be caused to be recovered under Section 45-C to 45-I of the Act.” The petitioner is aggrieved by the said order. 2. The petitioner is raising the contention that Ext.P5 is unsustainable and the said order was passed without taking into account the factual situation involved in this case. It is also contended by the petitioner that the amount of Rs.8363/- was actually expended towards WP(C).No.27226/2010 2 elephant charges by the petitioner and therefore, he is not liable to pay contribution. 2. I have heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and also the learned standing counsel for the respondents. 3. The learned standing counsel for the respondents submitted that evidently Ext.P5 is an order passed under section 45A of the Act and in view of the contentions raised in this writ petition essentially there exists a dispute between the principal employer and the Corporation. Any matter involving dispute between the principal employer and the Corporation is appealable under section 75 of the Act, it is further submitted. Going by the averments made in this writ petition, essentially the question to be decided is whether the amount involved in this issue was actually spent towards elephant charges, as contended by the petitioner and if so, whether Ext.P5 order is sustainable. Since the petitioner is challenging an order passed under Section 45A of the Act and the matter involves a dispute with respect to the above mentioned aspect, I am of the view that the petitioner should be relegated to the appellate remedy available under section 75 of the Act. In the above circumstances, this writ petition is disposed of granting liberty to the petitioner to resort to the appellate remedy provided under section 75 of the Act. A month's time is granted to prefer WP(C).No.27226/2010 3 an appeal in terms of section 75 of the Act against Ext.P5, from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. It is made clear that the entitlement of the respondents to effect recovery pursuant to Ext.P5 will be subject to the orders to be passed by the Employees' Insurance Court in the matter. Sd/- C.T.RAVIKUMAR Judge TKS // True copy // P.S. to Judge