IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.N.KRISHNAN WEDNESDAY, THE 27TH AUGUST 2008 / 5TH BHADRA 1930 MFA.No. 903 of 2002(E) ---------------------- IC.84/2000 of EI COURT, PALAKKAD .................... APPELLANT: APPLICANT IN IC.84/2000 ---------------------------------- MARUTHI VILAS, WILLINGDON ISLAND, KOCHI-3, REPRESENTED BY ITS PROPRIETOR, R.SADANANDAN. BY ADV. SRI.A.V.XAVIER SRI.JOLLY JOHN SMT.THUSHARA JAMES RESPONDENTS: OPPOSITE PARTIES IN IC.84/2000 ------------------------------------------- 1. EMPLOYEES STATE INSURANCE CORPORATION, PANCHDEEP BHAVAN, NORTH SWARAJ ROUND, THRISSUR-680 020 REPRESENTED BY ITS REGIONAL DIRECTOR. 2. THE RECOVERY OFFICER, E.S.I. CORPORATION PANCHDEEP BHAVAN, NORTH SWARAJ ROUND, THRISSUR-20. BY ADV. SMT.T.D.RAJALAKSHMY, SC, ESI CORPN. THIS MISC. FIRST APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 27/08/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: MFA No.903/02 ORDER ON CMP No. 5426/02 IN MFA No.903/02 DISMISSED 27.8.08 SD/- M.N.KRISHNAN, JUDGE /TRUE COPY/ PA TO JUDGE. M.N.KRISHNAN, J. -------------------------- M.F.A. No. 903 OF 2002 --------------------- Dated this the 27th day of August, 2008 JUDGMENT This appeal is preferred against the order of the Employees' Insurance Court, Palakkad, in I.C. No.84/00. The applicant before the said court contended that it is not liable to pay interest in the light of the fact that there was a bonafide dispute regarding its liability and that litigations were pending in various forums regarding its liability to pay the amount. Ultimately it has been decided that the establishment is liable to be covered under the Act. So the main contention argued by the Learned counsel for the appellant is that really there was a bonafide dispute regarding its liability to pay the amount. By virtue of the challenge of the various orders issued, it should not be directed to pay the interest as claimed by the ESI Corporation. The matter has come up for consideration before the Division Bench of this court reported in Cannanore Drug Lines v. E.S.I. Corporation [2007 (1) KLT 880]. This court held as follows: “Merely because the appellant failed to pay contribution allegedly under a bonafide impression or belief that the establishment was MFA No.903/02 2 not covered under the provisions of the E.S.I. Act cannot absolve the appellant from the liability of paying interest on the delayed payment of E.S.I. Contribution under S.39(5) read with Regulation 31A. Neither the provisions in the E.S.I. (General) Regulations give any discretion to the respondent to exempt the appellant from the liability to pay interest on the delayed payment of E.S.I. Contribution. The bonafide impression of the appellant that his establishment was not covered under the provisions of ESI Act or the pendency of a dispute before the ESI Court regarding the appellant's liability to pay ESI contribution cannot be a valid ground for exempting the appellant from paying interest in terms of S.39(5)(a) and Regulation 31A. When the statute does not provide for any such exemption the respondent cannot exclude the amount of interest from the demand made against the appellant.” In the light of this decision, it has to be held that the appellant is not entitled to any exemption from paying interest. I do not find any ground to interfere with the decision rendered by the EI Court. Therefore the appeal lacks merit and it is dismissed. But I make it clear that the instalment facility extended by the EI Court will hold good and let the first instalment commence from 1.11.08. M.N.KRISHNAN, JUDGE vps MFA No.903/02 3