High Court of Kerala
Case Law Search
THE REGIONAL DIRECTOR v. MANORAJYAM PUBLICATIONS (P) LTD. - Ins APP No. 16 of 2006  RD-KL 6004 (22 March 2007)
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAMIns APP No. 16 of 2006()
1. THE REGIONAL DIRECTOR,
1. MANORAJYAM PUBLICATIONS (P) LTD.,
For Petitioner :SMT.T.D.RAJALAKSHMY, SC, ESI CORPN.
For Respondent :SRI.A.M.SHAFFIQUE
The Hon'ble MR. Justice K.PADMANABHAN NAIR
O R D E R
K.Padmanabhan Nair, J.
- - - - -- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Ins.Appeal No.16 of 2006-A
- - -- - - - -- - - - - - - - -- - - - - - --
Dated, this the 22nd day of March, 2007Judgment This appeal is against an order passed by the Employees Insurance Court, Idukki in I.C.No.13 of 2001 dated 29-8-2005, reducing the quantum of damages to 10% of the amount determined as damages by the Corporation.
2. Respondent is a newspaper establishment covered under the provisions of the Employees State Insurance Act. There was delay in remitting the E.S.I. contributions for 14 months prior to the closure of the establishment. Since there was delay the appellant initiated proceedings under Section 85-B of the E.S.I Act and claimed an amount of Rs.40,590/- as damages. Subsequently a further amount of Rs.194/- was also imposed as damages. According to the respondent, the delay in paying the E.S.I. contributions was due to financial problems Challenging the order imposing damages, respondent filed I. C. No.13 of 2001. The Employees Insurance Court after considering the materials on record held that the respondent is liable to pay damages. But the court has reduced the quantum of damages to 10% of the total amount claimed. Challenging that order, this appeal is filed.
3. It is argued that the respondent -M/s. Manorajyam Publications Limited- Ins.Appeal No.16 of 2006 2 was a chronic defaulter and in spite of repeated demands, it did not respond to any of the notices and proceedings under Section 85-B of the E.S.I Act was initiated. Damages was imposed. The fact remains that Manorajyam Publications Limited was closed down in the year 1999 and that establishment is not functioning. Considering all aspects of the matter, especially the financial crisis faced by the Company, the E.I.Court took a view that the quantum of damages can be reduced to 10% and fixed the same. That is a pure question of fact. There is no scope for interference in the appeal. There is no merit in the appeal and the same is only to be dismissed. In the result, appeal is dismissed. K.Padmanabhan Nair, Judge. s.
Double Click on any word for its dictionary meaning or to get reference material on it.