E.S.I. Corporation vs Kerala Distilleries on 30 September, 2008

Kerala High Court
E.S.I. Corporation vs Kerala Distilleries on 30 September, 2008




Ins.APP.No. 64 of 2006()

                      ...  Petitioner


                       ...       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

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

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.



Leave a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

* Copy This Password *

* Type Or Paste Password Here *

Cookies help us deliver our services. By using our services, you agree to our use of cookies. More Information