IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.N.KRISHNAN MONDAY, THE 29TH SEPTEMBER 2008 / 7TH ASWINA 1930 Ins.APP.No. 73 of 2007() ------------------------ IC.114/2004 of THE EMPLOYEES INSURANCE COURT, ALAPPUZHA .................... APPELLANT/APPLICANT: ------------------------------------ E.K.ANILKUMAR, MANAGING PARTNER, M/S.CENTRAL TOURIST AGENCIES, OLD THEVARA ROAD, COCHIN-16. REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING PARTNER. BY ADV. SRI.P.J.JOY RESPONDENT/RESPONDENT: ------------------------------------------ THE DEPUTY REGIONAL DIRECTOR, REGIONAL OFFICE, E.S.I.CORPORATION, PANCHADEEP BHAVAN, NORTH SWARAJ ROUND, TRICHUR-20 REPRESENTED BY ITS REGIONAL DIRECTOR. ADV. SRI.T.V.AJAYAKUMAR, SC, ESI CORPN. THIS INSURANCE APPEALS HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 29/09/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: INS.APPEAL NO. 73/2007 ORDER ON I.A. NO.1864/2007 IN INS. APPEAL NO. 73/2007 DISMISSED. SD/- M.N. KRISHNAN, JUDGE 29/09/2008 /TRUE COPY/ P.A. TO JUDGE. vkm M.N.KRISHNAN, J. -------------------------- Ins. Appeal. No. 73 OF 2007 --------------------- Dated this the 29th day of September, 2008 JUDGMENT This appeal is preferred by the applicant in I.C. No.114/04 of the Employees' Insurance Court, Alappuzha. By the said application, the applicant wanted to declare that his establishment is not covered under the Employees' State Insurance Act. It is contended that the establishment is not covered and any order proposing to impose damages is also incorrect. On the other hand, the ESI Corporation would contend that the establishment has paid the contribution, interest and damages. It also issued a notice D9 for imposition of damages for the delayed payment of contribution for the period from 1/2003 to 3/2003. The EI Court on consideration of the materials found that there is no substance in raising the contention that it is not liable to be covered under the ESI Act. 2. Heard the learned counsel for the respondent. A perusal of the judgment would reveal that the establishment itself has admitted that it is covered under the ESI Act and thereafter has paid the contribution, interest and damages. It is too late in the day to Ins. Appeal 73/07 2 contend that the establishment is not covered at all. Therefore, the conclusion of the EI Court is absolutely correct and the applicant cannot be heard to say that his establishment is not covered under the ESI Act. The finding of the court below does not call for any interference. The appeal lacks merit and it is accordingly dismissed. M.N.KRISHNAN, JUDGE vps Ins. Appeal 73/07 3