IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.SIRI JAGAN FRIDAY, THE 25TH JULY 2008 / 3RD SRAVANA 1930 WP(C).No. 21742 of 2008(L) ---------------------------------- PETITIONER: ---------------- A.K.SANTHA, PROPRIETRIX, M/S.HOTEL SAYANA, MUVATTUPUZHA. BY ADV. SRI.B.KRISHNA MANI RESPONDENTS: ------------------ 1. THE REGIONAL DIRECTOR, EMPLOYEE'S STATE INSURANCE CORPORATION, PANCHDEEP BHAVAN, NORTH SWARAJ ROUND, P.B.NO.2, THRISSUR. 2. THE JOINT DIRECTOR, EMPLOYEE'S STATE INSURANCE CORPORATION, PANCHDEEP BHAVAN, NORTH SWARAJ ROUND, P.B.NO.2, THRISSUR. 3. THE RECOVERY OFFICER, CENTRAL ZONE, EMPLOYEES STATE INSURANCE CORPORATION, THRISSUR - 20. BY ADV. SRI.T.P.M.IBRAHIM KHAN, SC, ESI CORPN. FOR R1 TO 3 THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 25/07/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: S. SIRI JAGAN, J. ------------------------------------ W.P.(C)No.21742 OF 2008 ---------------------------------------- Dated this the 25th day of July, 2008 JUDGMENT The petitioner is the proprietor of a hotel, which is covered under the Employees State Insurance Act. Originally the petitioner disputed the liability for coverage under the Act. The petitioner embarked on a series of litigation before the Employees Insurance Court and this Court. The petitioner did not succeed. This Court ultimately held that the petitioner’s establishment is liable to be covered under the Act. As a result the petitioner became liable to pay contributions with effect from the date of coverage. The respondent directed the petitioner to pay interest also on the belated payment of contributions. The same is under challenge in this writ petition. 2. The petitioner’s contention is that since the petitioner had been bonafide prosecuting the question of coverage of the establishment itself, no interest can be levied on the contributions till the question of coverage of the establishment was finally decided by this Court. The petitioner also refers to W.P.(c)No.21742/08 2 some decisions of this Court including one under the Employees Provident Funds and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, in which this Court held that the delayed payment should carry interest only from the date of the order, when coverage was finalised in 1994. 3. I have considered the rival contentions in detail. I am of opinion that a Division Bench decision of this Court in ESI Corporation V. Bharat Hotel [2008(3) KLT 195] is a complete answer to all contentions of the petitioner. In that decision, the Division Bench held that in so far as the payment of interest is statutory the fact that the petitioner had obtained a stay from this Court from payment of the contributions pending disposal of the case is no ground for avoiding interest. The ESI Regulations contain a provision, whereby it has been made mandatory for covered establishments to pay interest also on delayed payments of contributions. The same being statutory, no Court can direct that an assessee need not pay interest on any ground whatsoever, perhaps if, the ESI Corporation had committed some fraud or misrepresentation on the petitioner may be able to raise such a contention. The petitioner does not allege any such thing in the writ petition. W.P.(c)No.21742/08 3 That being so, the petitioner cannot, in this case, avoid payment of interest for the delay in payment of contributions. Therefore, I do not find any merit in this writ petition and accordingly the same is dismissed. The petitioner submits that the petitioner is seeking review of the judgment of this Court in the M.F.A. in which the question of coverage was finally decided, for the purpose of exempting the petitioner from paying interest. I am not expressing any view on the same. S. SIRI JAGAN, JUDGE Acd W.P.(c)No.21742/08 4