IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
Ins.APP.No. 51 of 2008()
1. SHIJO T. PAUL, PROPRIETOR,
... Petitioner
Vs
1. THE REGIONAL DIRECTOR,
... Respondent
For Petitioner :SRI.C.ANIL KUMAR
For Respondent :SRI.T.V.AJAYAKUMAR, SC, ESI CORPN.
The Hon'ble MR. Justice M.N.KRISHNAN
Dated :07/12/2009
O R D E R
M.N. KRISHNAN, J.
= = = = = = = = = = = = = =
INS.APPEAL NO. 51 OF 2008
= = = = = = = = = = = = = = =
Dated this the 7th day of December, 2009.
J U D G M E N T
This appeal is preferred against the order of the
Employees Insurance Court, Alappuzha in I.C.69/03. An
application was filed before the Court below seeking for a
declaration that the applicant’s establishment is not liable to
be covered under the E.S.I.Act. It was contended that there
was not more than 9 employees at any point of time and
some ITC students were permitted to take practical training
in motor workshop from there and that is why the insurance
official was able to find 11 persons and so the order passed
by the Corporation ordering coverage of the institution was
sought to be set aside. The learned Insurance Court after
exhaustive consideration of the materials held against the
applicant and it is against that decision the appplicant has
come up in appeal. The two substantial questions of law
raised are as follows.
INS.APPEAL NO. 51 OF 2008
-:2:-
“(A) Whether the findings of the
E.I.Court are based on the evidence on
record?
(B) Whether the students
undergoing training in the establishment
can be treated as workmen under the
Employees State Insurance Act for the
purpose of coverage?”
2. It is the definite contention of the establishment
that there can be never more than 9 employees in the
establishment. According to it from the neighboring ITC
institution some students have come up for training and they
had been counted along with the employees and thereby the
Corporation had directed coverage of the institution. DW1
an insurance inspector visited the establishment on
9.5.2001. He was able to find 11 persons employed for
wages in the establishment. He prepared a report and the
said report was signed by the supervisor of the
establishment. DW1 had interviewed the persons, obtained
their names, parentage and address, nature of work period
of service, wages drawn and also their signatures. It is there
INS.APPEAL NO. 51 OF 2008
-:3:-
after the supervisor of the establishment counter signed it.
Now the contention is that from the neighbouring institution
some students have come for training. Except the assertion
there are no materials produced before the Court to show
that who are all those trainees and their particulars. On the
contra a respectable officer of the Corporation had visited the
establishment and in the presence of their supervisor he
counted the number and given all particulars regarding the
employees. Such a report establishes the presence of 11
employees, employed for wages and it has become final and
that decision does not suffer from any material infirmity or
on misappreciation of evidence. Therefore the questions of
law formulated by the counsel for the appellants has to be
found against the establishment and it has to be held that
the finding of the E.I.Court does not suffer from any
infirmity. So the appeal lacks merit and the same is
dismissed.
M.N. KRISHNAN, JUDGE.
ul/-