IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.N.KRISHNAN MONDAY, THE 15TH DECEMBER 2008 / 24TH AGRAHAYANA 1930 Ins.APP.No. 77 of 2007 ------------------------------ IC.14/2004 of EMPLOYEES INSURANCE COURT, ALAPPUZHA .................... APPELLANTS: --------------------- 1. THE REGIONAL DIRECTOR, PANCHADEEP BHAVAN, THRISSUR-20. 2. THE RECOVERY OFFICER, E.S.I. CORPORATION, PANCHADEEP BHAVAN, THRISSUR-20. BY ADV. SRI.T.V.AJAYAKUMAR RESPONDENTS: ----------------------- 1. T.S.SREEDHARAN, S/O SUBRAMANIAN, KARAPARAMBU, PALLURUTHY, ERNAKULAM. 2. K.K.VISWAMBHARAN, KAITHAVALAPPU, NAYARAMBALAM. 3. K.R.MARSHAN, KOIPURATH VEEDU, AYYAMPALLY, KUZHUPILLY. 4. THILAKAN P.S., POOVAMPILLY, KOCHUAMBALAM, NAYARAMBALAM. 5. C.S.GHOSH, CHANDRASSERY VEEDU, CHARAI P.O. ADV. SRI.A.V.XAVIER FOR R1-5 THIS INSURANCE APPEALS HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 15/12/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: M.N. KRISHNAN, J ----------------------- INSURANCE APPEAL No. 77 OF 2007 -------------------------------------------- Dated this the 15th day of December, 2008 JUDGMENT This appeal is preferred against the order of the Employees' Insurance Court, Alappuzha in I.C. No. 14/2004. The applicants before the said court moved an application for declaration that the demand of contribution made in respect of Toddy Shop No.11 of Palluruthy for the period from 6/82 to 3/85 is unsustainable. It was contended that the very said initiation is barred by limitation. The E.I Court on the basis of the decision of the full Bench of this Court reported in E.S.I. Corporation v. Excel Glasses Ltd. [2003 (3) KLT 42] held that the very initiation of proceedings is barred by limitation and therefore dismissed the proceedings as unsustainable. It is against that decision the E.S.I. Corporation has come up in appeal. 2. The learned counsel for the E.S.I. Corporation had brought my notice to the decision of the apex court reported in Employees State Insurance Corporation v. Santhakumar [2007 (1) KLT 133 (SC)]. The apex court by the said decision had reversed the decision of the Full Bench of this court reported in 2003 (3) KLT 42. The apex court held that “the period of five years for the claim Ins. Appeal No. 77/07 -2- made by the Corporation will apply only in respect of claim made by Corporation before E.S.I. Court and to no other proceedings.” It is also made clear that “the prescription of limitation has not been made applicable to adjudication proceedings under S. 45A”. The apex court also made it clear that the concept of reasonable time also is a matter which has to be taken into account according to the surrounding circumstances and the relevant facts to decide that question. So in the light of the decision by the apex court in the decision referred to above it has to be held that the finding of the E.I. Court is not sustainable in law and therefore it has to be set aside. Therefore the appeal is allowed and I set aside the order of the E.I Court and remit the case back to the same court for consideration of the entire matter in the light of the principles laid down by the apex court in the decision reported in 2007(1) KLT 133 (SC). The E.I. court is directed to issue notice fixing the date of appearance of the parties. The Insurance appeal is disposed of accordingly. M.N. KRISHNAN,JUDGE vkm