IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
Ins.APP.No. 64 of 2006()
1. E.S.I. CORPORATION,
... Petitioner
2. THE RECOVERY OFFICER,
Vs
1. KERALA DISTILLERIES,
... Respondent
For Petitioner :SMT.T.D.RAJALAKSHMY, SC, ESI CORPN.
For Respondent :SRI.K.A.ABRAHAM
The Hon'ble MR. Justice M.N.KRISHNAN
Dated :30/09/2008
O R D E R
M.N. KRISHNAN, J.
= = = = = = = = = = = = = =
INS.APPEAL NO. 64 OF 2006
= = = = = = = = = = = = = = =
Dated this the 30th day of September, 2008.
J U D G M E N T
This appeal is preferred against the judgment of the
Employees Insurance Court, Palakkad in I.C.67/03. The only
point canvassed before me is with respect to the finding
entered into in paragraph 11 of the order. A perusal of
paragraph 11 of the order would show that according to the
Corporation the applicant failed to produce the relevant
records for the purpose of bifurcating the wage element from
Bottling Hall expenses. It was found on verification of
General Ledger for the year 1996-97 that an amount of
Rs.1,19,99,940/- had been incurred. The E.S.I. Corporation
in the absence of records to find out the actual wage element
applied the normal norms of 25% and calculated the amount,
but the establishment produced a certificate from the
registered valuer stating that the labour charge would come
to Rs.21,35,451.81. If 25% is taken into consideration it will
come to Rs.29,99,985/-. If it is 25% the assessed
Ins. Appeal 64 OF 2006
-:2:-
contribution will be Rs.1,65,000/- if it is that of the
registered valuer it would be Rs.1,17,450/-. The E.S.I
Corporation found that in the absence of convincing materials
to hold otherwise regarding the evidence of the valuer’s
certificate it thought fit to accept the same instead of
accepting a probable approximate guess. I cannot find fault
with the said finding. So I hold that such an acceptance by
the E.I. Court does not suffer from any illegality, irregularity
or infirmity so as to attract a substantial question of law so
as to entertain the appeal.
2. Learned counsel would contend that in paragraph
13 the Tribunal itself has held that the applicant shall be
liable to pay contribution only on 25% of the total expenses
incurred under the heads repair of buildings and water
roofing whereas the Corporation wanted to assess it at 60%.
The Court below found that 25% appears to be the
reasonable approach and accepted it. But so far as
Rs.1,17,450/- is concerned the decision arrived at by the
Court below is not on conjectures and surmises but on the
Ins. Appeal 64 OF 2006
-:3:-
basis of a document issued by a registered valuer which has
not been shattered in evidence in any form. Therefore I do
not find any illegality or irregularity to interfere with the
decision rendered by the E.I. Court and so the appeal lacks
merit and it is therefore dismissed.
The contention of the learned counsel for the E.S.I
Corporation that 60% has to be accepted also is not proper
and therefore that request is also rejected.
M.N. KRISHNAN, JUDGE.
ul/-
