E.S.I. Corporation vs M/S.Cherthala South Coir … on 4 July, 2008

       

  

  

 
 
  IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

Ins.APP.No. 14 of 2008()


1. E.S.I. CORPORATION, REPRESENTED BY
                      ...  Petitioner

                        Vs



1. M/S.CHERTHALA SOUTH COIR VYAVASAYA
                       ...       Respondent

                For Petitioner  :SRI.P.SANKARANKUTTY NAIR

                For Respondent  : No Appearance

The Hon'ble MR. Justice J.B.KOSHY
The Hon'ble MR. Justice P.N.RAVINDRAN

 Dated :04/07/2008

 O R D E R
          J.B.KOSHY & P.N.RAVINDRAN, JJ.
                 -------------------------------
       INSURANCE APPEAL.NO.14 OF 2008 ()
               -----------------------------------
          Dated this the 4th day of July, 2008

                     J U D G M E N T

KOSHY,J.

Respondent is a Co-operative Society owned by the

Coir workers. A demand was issued by the appellant

E.S.I.Corporation for covering the above establishment.

Society was running on heavy loss. The Society applied for

exemption and Government of Kerala granted exemption from

1.4.1983 to 31.3.2004. But despite that, by revenue recovery

proceedings, an amount of Rs.1,03,958/- was recovered from

the Integrated Coir Development Project account maintained

in the name of respondent Society. The contention of the

E.S.I.Corporation is that the Government granted exemption

with a condition that the amount paid shall not be refunded.

E.I.Court held that the amount was not paid during the

contribution period, subsequently, by taking the revenue

recovery proceedings and the above condition is not

INS.AP.14/2008 2

applicable. When the appeal came up for admission, we

requested the counsel for the appellant to verify whether any

benefits at all are given to employees of the Society during the

period and it is submitted that no benefits were given to the

employees of the Society. So, without giving any benefits to

the employees of the Society for the period, the amount

realised from the exempted Society has to be refunded.

Therefore, the amount forcibly taken, without giving any

benefits, was ordered to be refunded. We see no ground to

interfere in the impugned order, and hence, this appeal is

dismissed.

J.B.KOSHY, JUDGE

P.N.RAVINDRAN, JUDGE
prp

J.B.KOSHY & P.N.RAVINDRAN, JJ.

——————————————————–

M.F.A.NO. OF 2006 ()

———————————————————

J U D G M E N T

———————————————————

26th May, 2008