Indira Das vs The Regional Director on 17 June, 2008

       

  

  

 
 
  IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

Ins.APP.No. 88 of 2007()


1. INDIRA DAS, PROPRIETOR
                      ...  Petitioner

                        Vs



1. THE REGIONAL DIRECTOR
                       ...       Respondent

                For Petitioner  :SRI.A.JAYASANKAR

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

The Hon'ble MR. Justice M.N.KRISHNAN

 Dated :17/06/2008

 O R D E R
                           M.N.KRISHNAN, J.
                           --------------------------
                 Insurance Appeal No. 88 OF 2007
                             ---------------------
                Dated this the 17th day of June, 2008

                               JUDGMENT

This appeal is preferred against the order passed by the

Employees’ Insurance Court, in I.C. 31/04. By the said order, the

court held that the applicant establishment comes under the ESI Act

from 8.8.03 onwards and therefore directed the Employees’ State

Insurance Corporation to initiate fresh proceedings to assess the ESI

contribution with notice to the applicant.

2. Learned counsel for the appellant/applicant would

submit before me that they are not covered and therefore the said

finding is incorrect. It is submitted that the workers available at the

premises were the workers of a contractor who was delegated to do

certain work in the premises. When it is so, it has to be stated that

the question that may have to be determined is whether the

contractor is an immediate employer. As per the statutes the

appellant has to pay the contribution first and to recover the same

from the immediate employer. In order to arrive at a finding

necessarily a notice has to go to the said person who has been

Ins. Appeal No.88/07 2

examined as PW2 in this case and who has admitted that he was a

contractor working under the appellant. Therefore, I direct the ESI

Corporation to issue notice first and then to decide the question

whether PW2 in this case is an immediate employer. Thereafter ut

can enter into a finding and proceed in accordance with the other

terms of remand in this case. If ultimately it is found that as a

principle employer the appellant has to pay the amount then

necessary provisions be made to authorise him to get the amounts

so paid from the immediate employer after hearing him and decide

the matter on merits. Thus the order of the ESI Court is modified and

it is directed to proceed in accordance with the directions contained

herein.

M.N.KRISHNAN, JUDGE
vps

Ins. Appeal No.88/07 3

Ins. Appeal No.88/07 4