High Court Kerala High Court

The Regional Director vs K.R.Muraleedharan on 31 July, 2008

Kerala High Court
The Regional Director vs K.R.Muraleedharan on 31 July, 2008
       

  

  

 
 
  IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

Ins.APP.No. 12 of 2003(A)


1. THE REGIONAL DIRECTOR,
                      ...  Petitioner
2. THE RECOVERY OFFICER,

                        Vs



1. K.R.MURALEEDHARAN,
                       ...       Respondent

                For Petitioner  :SRI.P.SANKARANKUTTY NAIR

                For Respondent  :SRI.V.GIRI

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

 Dated :31/07/2008

 O R D E R
                           M.N.KRISHNAN, J
                       =====================
                          INAP No.12 OF 2003
                       =====================

                  Dated this the 31st day of July 2008

                               JUDGMENT

This appeal is preferred against the order of the Employees’

Insurance Court, Idukki in I.C.No. 2 of 1999, whereby the court allowed the

application filed by Sri.K.R.Muraleedharan. The brief facts would reveal

that the applicant was the licensee of toddy shop No.22. The applicant

would contend that it was his father K.T.Ramakrishnan, who was

conducting the toddy shop and the employees were engaged by him and

therefore Sri,Ramakrishnan was the employer and the others were the

employees. There is default in paying E.S.I contribution and it was paid

belatedly and so proceedings were initiated under Section 85 B of the Act

for recovery of damages. The Inspector attached to the Corporation also had

submitted a report to the effect that though the applicant before the court

below was the son of Sri.Ramakrishnan, the employees were engaged only

by Sri.Ramakrishnan and so the employer-employee relationship was

between him and the workers. It appears that but for the fact that he is a

son and a licensee all other points would indicate that Sri.Ramakrishnan

INAP 12/2003 -:2:-

was the employer. Now the Corporation has initiated recovery proceedings

for damages against the son of Ramakrishnan, who is not the employer.

Section 85B mandates that such proceedings can only be initiated against

the employer. Therefore the court below found that being not an employer

no action can be initiated against the applicant therein. I find that the said

approach of the court is in conformity with law and the order passed also is

proper and therefore it does not call for any interference. Therefore the

appeal fails and the same is dismissed.

M.N.KRISHNAN, JUDGE

Cdp/-