IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
MFA No. 801 of 2002(B)
1. THE REGIONAL DIRECTOR, ESI CORPORATION,
... Petitioner
2. THE DEPUTY DIRECTOR, ESI CORPORATION,
3. THE RECOVERY OFFICER, ESI CORPORATION,
4. THE INSURANCE INSPECTOR,
5. THE RECOVERY OFFICER,
Vs
1. SRI.THYAGARAJAN, KRISHNAVENIYIL,
... Respondent
For Petitioner :SRI.T.V.AJAYAKUMAR
For Respondent :SRI.K.HARILAL
The Hon'ble MR. Justice K.PADMANABHAN NAIR
Dated :21/03/2007
O R D E R
K.Padmanabhan Nair,J.
--------------------------------
M.F.A.No.801 of 2002-B
--------------------------------
Dated, this the 21st day of March, 2007
JUDGMENT
Initially the establishment of the respondent, which was a
toddy shop, was covered under the provisions of the Employees’ State
Insurance Act. Subsequently, on account of the action taken by the
Excise and Revenue Departments, the area under operation of the
toddy shop was divided into three and three separate shops were
established. Consequent to the separation, the number of the
employees in the establishment of the respondent were reduced than
the statutory minimum. Still, the Corporation took up a stand that the
establishment continues to be one covered under the Act on account of
Section 1(6) of the Act. In E.S.I. Corporation v. Muraleedharan
[2003 (2) KLT SN 70 (Case No.92)], the question was answered
against the Corporation. It was held that if the status of the
establishment is altered through statutory intervention, Section 1(6)
can have no application. The facts of the case in hand are identical to
Muraleedharan’s case (supra). So, the appeal has to fail.
In the result, the appeal is dismissed.
K.Padmanabhan Nair
Judge
vku/-