IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.PADMANABHAN NAIR WEDNESDAY, THE 16TH JANUARY 2008 / 26TH POUSHA 1929 MFA.No. 91 of 2003(B) -------------------------------- IC.161/2001 of EMPLOYEES INSURANCE COURT, ALAPPUZHA .................... APPELLANT: OPPOSITE PARTIES -------------------------------------------- 1. RECOVERY OFFICER, E.S.I. CORPORATION, REGIONAL OFFICE, THRISSUR. 2. DEPUTY DIRECTOR, E.S.I. CORPORATION, THRISSUR-20. BY ADV. SRI.P.SANKARANKUTTY NAIR RESPONDENTS: APPELLANT -------------------------------------- MODI RUBBER LIMITED, P.B.NO.1815, COOLLIS ESTATE, M.G.ROAD, COCHIN-682 016M REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGER, MR.ANIL KASLIWAL THIS MISC. FIRST APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 16/01/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: K. PADMANABHAN NAIR, J. = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = M.F.A. NO.91 OF 2003 = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = Dated this the 16th day of January, 2008 J U D G M E N T -------------------- The Employees State Insurance Corporation, Thrissur, is challenging the order passed by the Employees' Insurance Court, Alappuzha, by which it exonerated the respondent from paying damages to the appellant. There was delay in paying contribution. Appellant claimed interest as well as damages. Respondent paid interest, but disputed its liability to pay damages. Appellant insisted that the respondent shall pay an an amount of Rs.51,406/- as damages. 2. The Insurance Court, after evaluating the evidence and following the decision reported in ESI Corporation v. Sakthi Tiles (1988 (2)KLT 280), held that it is not mandatory to impose damages. In ESI Corporation v. Premanandan (2007 (2) KLT 666), a Division Bench of this Court held that unless there is contumacious conduct, it is not proper to impose damages. The amount claimed is contribution on omitted wages. As rightly held by the EI Court, the question M.F.A. NO. 91 OF 2003 -: 2 :- of payment of omitted wages arises only when the same was detected and demanded by the Corporation. Though it was detected, there was delay in taking action. The EI Court took a view that there was every possibility that the respondent made an impression that the appellant was satisfied with the explanation offered by the respondent. The EI Court had given very valid and cogent reasons for allowing the application filed by the respondent. I do not find any reason to interfere with the order passed by the EI Court. Further, no substantial question of law arises for consideration also in this appeal. So the appeal is without any merit and the same is only to be dismissed. In the result, appeal is dismissed. K. PADMANABHAN NAIR, JUDGE. vsv K. PADMANABHAN NAIR, J. ===================== M.F.A.NO.91 OF 2003 ===================== J U D G M E N T ------------------------------------------- 16TH JANUARY, 2008