Employees State Insurance … vs M/S. Bagsvig Vyttila on 5 June, 2007

       

  

  

 
 
  IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

WA No. 370 of 2005(B)


1. EMPLOYEES STATE INSURANCE CORPORATION,
                      ...  Petitioner
2. THE REGIONAL DIRECTOR, REGIONAL OFFICE,
3. THE RECOVERY OFFICER, E.S.I. CORPORATION

                        Vs



1. M/S. BAGSVIG VYTTILA, COCHIN-19,
                       ...       Respondent

2. UNION OF INDIA.

                For Petitioner  :SRI.T.P.M.IBRAHIM KHAN, SC, ESI CORPN.

                For Respondent  :SRI.ABRAHAM JOHN

The Hon'ble the Chief Justice MR.H.L.DATTU
The Hon'ble MR. Justice K.T.SANKARAN

 Dated :05/06/2007

 O R D E R
                                    H.L.Dattu,C.J. & K.T.Sankaran,J.

                                    ----------------------------------------------

                                          W.A.No.370 of 2005

                                    ----------------------------------------------

                                   Dated, this the 5th day of June, 2007


                                                  JUDGMENT

K.T.Sankaran,J.

In view of the decision of the Supreme Court reported in Employees State

Insurance Corporation v. Santhakumar [2007 (1) KLT 133 (SC)], the contention that the

proceedings are barred by limitation would not survive. The decision of the Full Bench of

this Court in E.S.I. Corporation v. Excel Glasses Ltd. [2003 (3) KLT 42 (FB)] is no longer

good law in view of the Supreme Court decision. Therefore, the Writ Appeal is liable to be

allowed on that ground and the writ petition is liable to be dismissed.

2. The learned counsel for the 1st respondent submits that the writ petitioner

had challenged the vires of Regulation 31C of the Employees’ State Insurance (General)

Regulations, 1950 and the learned Single Judge has not decided that point and confined

the decision to the question of limitation. Now having held that the proceedings are not

barred by limitation in view of the decision of the Supreme Court, the question whether

Regulation 31C is ultra vires or not assumes importance and it is relevant for decision. At

this distance of time, we do not think, the writ petitioner should be allowed to proceed with

the writ petition for the said relief.

Accordingly, the Writ Appeal is allowed and the impugned judgment is set

aside. Liberty is reserved to the 1st respondent-writ petitioner, if he so desires, to

challenge Regulation 31C in appropriate proceedings.

H.L.Dattu

Chief Justice

K.T.Sankaran

Judge

vku/-