Kerala High Court
Employees State Insurance Corporation vs M/S. Holy Family Hospital on 17 July, 2026
1
CNR : KLHC010630202018
Ins.Appeal Nos.7,8,9 & 11 of 2018
2026:KER:53518
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.MANU
FRIDAY, THE 17TH DAY OF JULY 2026 / 26TH ASHADHA, 1948
INS.APP NO. 7 OF 2018
AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 16.11.2017 IN MP NO.48/2017 IN IC
NO.14 OF 2017 OF EMPLOYEES INSURANCE COURT, ALAPPUZHA
APPELLANT/PETITIONER/OPPOSITE PARTY:
EMPLOYEES STATE INSURANCE CORPORATION
MALU'S COMPLEX, ST. FRANCIS CHURCH ROAD,
KALOOR, KOCHI-682017,
REPRESENTED BY ITS DEPUTY DIRECTOR.
BY ADV SHRI.T.V.AJAYAKUMAR
RESPONDENT/RESPONDENT/APPLICANT:
M/S. VETTOOR HOTELS
NEAR K.S.R.T.C BUS STAND, ETTUMANOOR,
KOTTAYAM DISTRICT, KERALA STATE,
REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING PARTNER BABY CHERIAN.
BY ADVS.
SRI.C.B.MUKUNDAN (THRISSUR)
SRI.M.P.MATHEW (MALAYIL)
THIS INSURANCE APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON
17.07.2026, ALONG WITH Ins.APP.11/2018 AND CONNECTED CASES, THE
COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
2
CNR : KLHC010630202018
Ins.Appeal Nos.7,8,9 & 11 of 2018
2026:KER:53518
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.MANU
FRIDAY, THE 17TH DAY OF JULY 2026 / 26TH ASHADHA, 1948
INS.APP NO. 8 OF 2018
AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 23.11.2017 IN MP NO.99/2017 IN
IC NO.121 OF 2013 OF EMPLOYEES INSURANCE COURT, ALAPPUZHA
APPELLANT/PETITIONER/OPPOSITE PARTY:
DEPUTY DIRECTOR
EMPLOYEES STATE INSURANCE CORPORATION, ERNAKULAM.
BY ADV SHRI.T.V.AJAYAKUMAR
RESPONDENT/RESPONDENT/APPLICANT:
M/S. HOLY FAMILY HOSPITAL
MUDALAKODAM, THODUPUZHA, IDUKKI - 685 605.
BY ADVS.
SHRI.BENNY P. THOMAS (SR.)
SRI.D.PREM KAMATH
SRI.TOM THOMAS (KAKKUZHIYIL)
SHRI.ABEL TOM BENNY
SHRI.JYOTHISH KRISHNA
SHRI.KURIAN OOMMEN THERAKATH
SMT.SRUTHY J. MAMPILLY
SHRI.JAIKRISHNAN.M.PISHARODI
THIS INSURANCE APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON
17.07.2026, ALONG WITH Ins.APP.11/2018 AND CONNECTED CASES, THE
COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
3
CNR : KLHC010630202018
Ins.Appeal Nos.7,8,9 & 11 of 2018
2026:KER:53518
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.MANU
FRIDAY, THE 17TH DAY OF JULY 2026 / 26TH ASHADHA, 1948
INS.APP NO. 9 OF 2018
AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 23.11.2017 IN MP NO.104/2017 IN
IC NO.32 OF 2017 OF EMPLOYEES INSURANCE COURT, ALAPPUZHA
APPELLANTS/PETITIONERS 1 TO 3/RESPONDENTS 1 TO 3:
1 EMPLOYEES STATE INSURANCE CORPORATION
MALU'S COMPLEX, ST. FRANCIS CHURCH ROAD,
KALOOR, KOCHI-17.
2 THE DEPUTY DIRECTOR
EMPLOYEES STATE INSURANCE CORPORATION,
MALU'S COMPLEX, ST. FRANCIS CHURCH ROAD,
KALOOR, KOCHI-17.
3 THE RECOVERY OFFICER
EMPLOYEES' STATE INSURANCE CORPORATION,
MALU'S COMPLEX, ST. FRANCIS CHURCH ROAD,
KALOOR, KOCHI-17.
BY ADV SHRI.T.V.AJAYAKUMAR
RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENT AND PETITIONERS 4 & 5/APPLICANT &
RESPONDENTS 4 & 5:
1 M/S.HOLY FAMILY HOSPITAL
MUDALAKODAM, THODUPUZHA - 685605,
REPRESENTED BY ITS AUTHORISED SIGNATORY.
4
CNR : KLHC010630202018
Ins.Appeal Nos.7,8,9 & 11 of 2018
2026:KER:53518
*2 MANAGING DIRECTOR
M/S. CITY INDUSTRIAL SECURITY SERVICES, VIJAYA TOWER,
M.G.ROAD, MOOVATTUPUZHA, MUVATTUPUZHA.
*[RESPONDENT NO.2 IS DELETED FROM THE PARTY ARRAY IN
APPEAL AT THE RISK OF THE APPELLANT AS PER THE ORDER
DATED 09.07.2026 IN IA 1/2026 IN INSURANCE APPEAL
NO.9/2018]
3 MARSHAL PAUL
POTTAPLACKAL HOUSE, TASTE CANTEEN,
MUDALAKODAM, THODUPUZHA.
BY ADVS.
SHRI.BENNY P. THOMAS (SR.)
SRI.D.PREM KAMATH
THIS INSURANCE APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON
17.07.2026, ALONG WITH Ins.APP.11/2018 AND CONNECTED CASES, THE
COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
5
CNR : KLHC010630202018
Ins.Appeal Nos.7,8,9 & 11 of 2018
2026:KER:53518
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.MANU
FRIDAY, THE 17TH DAY OF JULY 2026 / 26TH ASHADHA, 1948
INS.APP NO. 11 OF 2018
AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 23.11.2017 IN MP NO.37/2017 IN IC
NO.6 OF 2017 OF EMPLOYEES INSURANCE COURT, ALAPPUZHA
APPELLANTS/PETITIONERS 1 TO 3/RESPONDENTS 1 TO 3:
1 EMPLOYEES STATE INSURANCE CORPORATION
MALU'S COMPLEX, ST.FRANCIS CHURCH ROAD,
KALOOR, KOCHI-17.
2 THE DEPUTY DIRECTOR
EMPLOYEES STATE INSURANCE CORPORATION,
MALU'S COMPLEX, ST.FRANCIS CHURCH ROAD,
KALOOR, KOCHI - 17
3 THE SOCIAL SECURITY OFFICER
EMPLOYEES' STATE INSURANCE CORPORATION,
MALU'S COMPLEX, ST.FRANCIS CHURCH ROAD,
KALOOR, KOCHI - 17.
BY ADV SHRI.T.V.AJAYAKUMAR
RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENT AND PETITIONERS 4 & 5/APPLICANT AND
RESPONDENTS 4 & 5:
1 M/S. HOLY FAMILY HOSPITAL
MUDALAKODAM TOHDUPUZHA, PIN - 685605
6
CNR : KLHC010630202018
Ins.Appeal Nos.7,8,9 & 11 of 2018
2026:KER:53518
*2 MANAGING DIRECTOR (DELETED)
M/S. CITY INDUSTRIAL SECURITY SERVICES, VIJAYA TOWER,
M.G. ROAD, MOOVATTUPUZHA, MUVATTUPUZHA, PIN 686661
*[R2 IS DELETED FROM THE PARTY ARRAY VIDE ORDER DATED
9/7/2026 IN IA/1/26 IN INS.APPEAL 11/2018]
3 MARSHAL PAUL
POTTAPLACKAL HOUSE, TASTE CANTEEN, MUDALAKODAM,
THODUPUZHA, PIN - 685605
BY ADVS.
SRI.D.PREM KAMATH
SHRI.BENNY P. THOMAS (SR.)
THIS INSURANCE APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON
17.07.2026, ALONG WITH Ins.APP.7/2018, 8/2018 AND CONNECTED
CASES, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
7
CNR : KLHC010630202018
Ins.Appeal Nos.7,8,9 & 11 of 2018
2026:KER:53518
[CR]
S.MANU, J.
...........................................................
Ins.Appeal Nos.7, 8, 9 & 11 of 2018
............................................................
Dated this the 17th day of July, 2026
JUDGMENT
In all these appeals, the ESI Corporation is challenging
orders passed by the E.I Court, rejecting the Miscellaneous
Petitions filed by the Corporation in four Insurance Cases,
disputing the jurisdiction of the Court to entertain the
respective Insurance Cases. According to the ESI Corporation,
the applicants in all insurance cases are establishments
functioning in districts not within the jurisdiction of the E.I
Court, Alappuzha. The applicant in I.C. No.14/2017 is a hotel
functioning at Kottayam. Applicants in other three Insurance
Cases is a hospital functioning at Thodupuzha in Idukki district.
Kottayam and Idukki districts are within the jurisdiction of the
E.I Court Idukki.
8
CNR : KLHC010630202018
Ins.Appeal Nos.7,8,9 & 11 of 2018
2026:KER:53518
2. The Corporation raised principally two
contentions before the Insurance Court. It contended that it is
incumbent on the applicants in the Insurance Cases to implead
at least some of the employees or their unions as parties to the
proceedings, in view of the law laid down by the Hon’ble
Supreme Court in Fertilisers & Chemicals Travancore Ltd.
v. E.S.I. Corporation [2009 (3) KLT 946] and reiterated in
Employees’ State Insurance Corporation v. Bhakra Beas
Management Board and another [(2009) 10 SCC 671]. The
Corporation relied on Section 76(1) of the ESI Act and
contended that all proceedings before the Employees Insurance
Court shall be instituted in the Court appointed for the local
area in which the insured person was working at the time the
question or dispute arose. It was therefore contended before
the Insurance Court that the insured persons in all four cases
were working at the time when the dispute arose, beyond the
jurisdiction of the E.I. Court, Alappuzha and therefore the
Insurance Cases were not maintainable before the said Court.
9
CNR : KLHC010630202018
Ins.Appeal Nos.7,8,9 & 11 of 2018
2026:KER:53518
The Corporation relied on the judgment of a learned Single
Judge of this Court in ESI Corporation v. Panickaveettil Sir
Sebastian Public School [2010 (4) KLT 976] and another
judgment of a Division Bench of this Court in Regional
Director v. Bishop Moore Vidyapith [2012 (2) KHC 388].
3. Conversely, the applicants in the Insurance
Cases contended before the E.I Court that in view of Rule 16 of
the Kerala Employees’ Insurance Court Rules, 1958, the
Insurance Cases were perfectly maintainable before the E.I
Court, Alappuzha. They contended that impleadment of the
employees is not mandatory in every case as contended by the
ESI Corporation. In I.C. Nos.121/2013, 6/2017 and 32/2017
the applicant contended that the hospital is run by a Christian
congregation and nuns associated with the congregation were
offering services in the hospital. The applicant submitted that
the hospital was run on a charitable basis and that the persons
working there were not being paid “wages” as defined under
the ESI Act. It was therefore contended that the persons who
10
CNR : KLHC010630202018
Ins.Appeal Nos.7,8,9 & 11 of 2018
2026:KER:53518
are serving in the hospital are not “employees” as defined
under the ESI Act, and hence, impleadment of any of them was
not required. The applicant further contended that if no
employees are parties to the Insurance Case, then Section
76(1) can have no application and the question of jurisdiction
would be governed by Rule 16 of the Employees’ Insurance
Court Rules, 1958.
4. The learned Judge of the Insurance Court
heard the parties and rejected the Miscellaneous Petitions filed
by the ESI Corporation, by the orders impugned in these
appeals. The learned Judge held that the opposite parties in all
Insurance Cases are officers of the ESI Corporation having their
offices at Ernakulam. The learned Judge therefore held that in
view of Rule 16 of the Employees’ Insurance Court Rules, 1958,
the Insurance Cases were impeccably maintainable before the
E.I. Court, Alappuzha, having jurisdiction over Ernakulam
District. In response to the contention of the ESI Corporation
pertaining to non-impleadment of employees, the learned
11
CNR : KLHC010630202018
Ins.Appeal Nos.7,8,9 & 11 of 2018
2026:KER:53518
Judge held that the applicant is the master of his case, and it is
for the applicant to decide who shall be impleaded as the
respondent. It was further held that respondent or any other
person cannot compel the applicant to implead any party. The
learned Judge distinguished the judgments of this Court cited
by the ESI Corporation by holding that as far as employees are
not impleaded, law laid down in those cases would not have
any relevance in the Insurance Cases concerned.
5. Following are the common substantial
questions of law raised in the memorandum of appeals by the
appellant:
“i) Whether the finding of the learned EI Court that
according to Rule 16 of the Employees Insurance
Court Rules, 1958 the above El Court alone have
territorial jurisdiction for entertaining this case at
present and dismissing the above
M.P.Nos.37/17,48/17,99/17 and 104/17 filed by
the appellant for declaring that above I.C
Nos.6/17,14/17,121/13 and 32/17 is not
maintainable on the ground of territorial
jurisdiction are not violative of Sec.76(1) of the ESI
Act and against the ruling reported in 2010(4) KLT
976 and the judgment of the Hon’ble Division
Bench in Ins. App.No.12/10.
12
CNR : KLHC010630202018
Ins.Appeal Nos.7,8,9 & 11 of 2018
2026:KER:53518
ii) Whether the dismissal of the above
M.P.Nos.37/17,48/17,99/17 and 104/17 on the
basis of the finding of the learned EI Court that the
impleading or not impleading of the employee in
the present case within the realm of the wisdom of
the applicant is not against the law laid down by
the Hon’ble Supreme Court in 2009(3) KLT 946
and 2009(10) SCC 671?
iii)Whether the impugned order passed by the
learned EI Court ignoring or not following the law
laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in
2009(3) KLT 946 and 2009(10) SCC 671 is not
legally unsustainable and against the rule of law?”
6. The learned Standing Counsel for the ESI
Corporation referred to the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme
Court in Fertilisers & Chemicals Travancore Ltd. (supra)
and invited the attention of the Court specifically to Paragraph
Nos.8 to 12 of the judgment. For ready reference, the relevant
paragraphs are extracted hereunder:
“8. In this connection we may refer to S.75(1)
(a) of the Act which states that if any question
or dispute arises as to whether any person is an
employee of the employer concerned, or
whether the employer is liable to pay the
employer’s contribution towards the said
persons’ insurance, that is a matter that has to
be decided by the Employees Insurance Court.
Hence, in our opinion, the concerned person has
13
CNR : KLHC010630202018
Ins.Appeal Nos.7,8,9 & 11 of 2018
2026:KER:53518
to be heard before a determination is made
against him that he is not an employee of the
employer concerned.
9. The rules of natural justice require that if any
adverse order is made against any party, he/she
must be heard. Thus, if a determination is given
by the Employees Insurance Court that the
concerned persons are not the employees of the
petitioner, and that determination is given even
without hearing the concerned persons, it will be
clearly against the rules of natural justice.
10. It may be seen that S.75 of the Act does not
mention who will be the parties before the
Insurance Court. Since the determination by the
Insurance Court is a quasi-judicial
determination, natural justice requires that any
party which may be adversely affected or may
suffer civil consequences by such determination,
must be heard before passing any order by the
authority/court.
11. In our opinion, wherever any petition is filed
by an employer under S.75 of the Act, the
employer has not only to implead the E.S.I.C.
but has also to implead atleast some of the
workers concerned (in a representative capacity
if there are a large number of workers) or the
trade-union representing the said workers. If
that is not done, and a decision is given in
favour of the employer, the same will be in
violation of the rules of natural justice. After all,
the real concerned parties in labour matters are
the employer and the workers. The E.S.I.
Corporation will not be in any way affected if the
demand notice sent by it under S.45A/45B is
quashed.
14
CNR : KLHC010630202018
Ins.Appeal Nos.7,8,9 & 11 of 2018
2026:KER:53518
12. It must be remembered that the Act has
been enacted for the benefit of the workers to
give them medical benefits, which have been
mentioned in S.46 of the Act. Hence the
principal beneficiary of the Act is the workmen
and not the E.S.I. Corporation. The E.S.I.
Corporation is only the agency to implement and
carry out the object of the Act and it has
nothing to lose if the decision of the Employees
Insurance Court is given in favour of the
employer. It is only the workmen who have to
lose if a decision is given in favour of the
employer. Hence, the workmen (or at least
some of them in a representative capacity, or
their trade union) have to be necessarily made a
party/parties because the Act is a labour
legislation made for the benefit of the
workmen.”
[Emphasis added]
The Apex Court explicitly held that, whenever a petition is filed
by an employer under Section 75 of the Act, the employer must
implead not only the ESI Corporation but also at least some of
the workers concerned or the Trade Union representing those
workers. It was further held that if this is not done and a
decision is rendered in favour of the employer, such a decision
would be in violation of the rules of natural justice.
15
CNR : KLHC010630202018
Ins.Appeal Nos.7,8,9 & 11 of 2018
2026:KER:53518
7. The Hon’ble Supreme Court reiterated the
same view in Bhakra Beas Management Board (supra). The
learned Standing Counsel also pointed out that the law laid
down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Fertilisers &
Chemicals Travancore Ltd. (supra), was taken note of and
followed by this Court in Panickaveettil Sir Sebastian Public
School (supra) and Bishop Moore Vidyapith (supra). He
therefore submitted that, in all four Insurance Cases that
pertain to these appeals, it was obligatory on the part of the
applicants to implead the employees or their union. He
submitted that once the employees are impleaded, then the
question of jurisdiction will be squarely covered by the
provisions of Section 76(1) of the ESI Act. If that be so, since
the insured persons were not working at the time when the
dispute arose within the jurisdiction of the E.I. Court,
Alappuzha, the said Court would be incompetent to entertain
the Insurance Cases. The learned Standing Counsel submitted
that the binding law declared by the Hon’ble Supreme Court
16
CNR : KLHC010630202018
Ins.Appeal Nos.7,8,9 & 11 of 2018
2026:KER:53518
was lightly disregarded by the learned judge of the E.I Court,
by holding that it is for the applicant to decide who shall be
impleaded in the case.
8. I find considerable force in the submission
made by the learned Standing Counsel for the ESI Corporation
that the law declared by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in
Fertilisers & Chemicals Travancore Ltd. (supra) and
followed by this Court in various judgments was not properly
appreciated and followed by the learned judge of the E.I Court.
The approach adopted by the learned judge in this regard, to
say the least, was inappropriate. As noted above, the Hon’ble
Supreme Court in unequivocal terms held that in all cases filed
under Section 75 of the Employees’ State Insurance Act, the
employees or their unions shall unvaryingly be made parties. In
Som Mittal v. Govt of Karnataka [(2008) 3 SCC 753], the
Apex Court reiterated that the decisions of the Supreme Court
and High Court must be respected and carried out by the
subordinate courts punctually and faithfully. If the applicants
17
CNR : KLHC010630202018
Ins.Appeal Nos.7,8,9 & 11 of 2018
2026:KER:53518
fail to implead the employees or their unions in any case filed
under S.75 of the ESI Act, it is the onus of the E.I Court to
direct the applicants to implead the employees or their unions
in compliance with the law declared by the Hon’ble Supreme
Court. Following the law declared by the Apex Court is not
optional but obligatory. Instead of following the law laid down
by the Hon’ble Supreme Court, rather ignoring the same, the
learned judge of the E.I Court ventured to hold that the
applicant is the master of the case and no one can compel the
applicant to implead any persons other than those who are
chosen by the applicant. The said supposition of the learned
judge is plainly against the law declared in Fertilisers &
Chemicals Travancore Ltd. (supra) and hence indecorous
and illegal.
9. Principal argument of the learned counsel for
the 1st respondent in Insurance Appeal Nos.8/2018, 9/2018 and
11/2018 is that the hospital is operated by a Christian religious
congregation with nuns from the congregation offering their
18
CNR : KLHC010630202018
Ins.Appeal Nos.7,8,9 & 11 of 2018
2026:KER:53518
services therein. He therefore submitted that those who are
working in the hospital do not meet the criteria of the definition
of “employees” under the Employees Insurance Act, and hence,
impleadment of any of them is not required in the instant case.
If such a contention is accepted as an excuse to omit
compliance of the law declared by the Apex Court, what would
be the outcome? In every case wherein the employer has taken
up a contention that the persons who were reckoned as
employees by the ESI Corporation for assessing coverage and
determining contribution payable were not “employees” as
defined under the Act, the employer would be in a position to
circumvent the stipulation regarding impleadment of employees
laid down in Fertilisers & Chemicals Travancore Ltd.
(supra). That will lead to unjust results as the Apex Court has
made it clear that when the case of the employer regarding non
applicability of coverage under the Act is accepted, the losers
will be the employees and hence any decision rendered against
their interest, without their junction, would be in violation of
19
CNR : KLHC010630202018
Ins.Appeal Nos.7,8,9 & 11 of 2018
2026:KER:53518
the principles of natural justice. Consequently, if a verdict is
given by the EI Court in favour of the management in a case
filed under S.75 of the Act, without impleading the employees
or their unions, the same would contravene the principles of
natural justice and therefore be bad in law. If the exact essence
of the law laid down by the Apex Court in Fertilisers &
Chemicals Travancore Ltd. (supra) is imbibed, it follows that
even in cases wherein the management has a contention as
aforesaid, the requirement of impleading the employees or
their unions cannot be dispensed with. Nonetheless, the
impleadment as such shall not be construed as waiver of the
contentions of the employer.
10. Proceedings under Section 45A of the Act are
initiated by the ESI Corporation generally on the basis of the
reports furnished by the Social Security Officers who conduct
inspections in the establishments. In the case at hand, it is
submitted by the learned Standing Counsel for the ESI
Corporation as also the learned counsel for the hospital
20
CNR : KLHC010630202018
Ins.Appeal Nos.7,8,9 & 11 of 2018
2026:KER:53518
management that an inspection was conducted by the Social
Security Officer and it was reported that 85 employees were
working in the hospital. The Social Security Officer also added
that 55 among them were nuns. Even if the contention of the
learned counsel for the hospital management that nuns were
working without accepting any remuneration and they were not
employees under the Act is accepted, going by the report of the
Social Security Officer, there were many other employees also
in the hospital. Whether the hospital is liable to be covered by
the provisions of the Act and whether there are more than ten
employees working in the establishment who fall within the
definition of “employee” under the Employees’ State Insurance
Act are entirely matters to be adjudicated by the E.I. Court.
Therefore, I do not propose to express any opinion relating to
the said issue. However, fact remains that the Social Security
Officer submitted a report that 85 employees were working in
the hospital and the ESI Corporation found that the
establishment would fall within the coverage of the Act and was
21
CNR : KLHC010630202018
Ins.Appeal Nos.7,8,9 & 11 of 2018
2026:KER:53518
liable to pay contribution. In such a situation, in the light of
the directions issued by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in
Fertilisers & Chemicals Travancore Ltd. (supra), it is
essential for the hospital management to implead at least some
of the employees in representative capacity. It is open to the
hospital management to implead some of the persons working
in the hospital without prejudice to its contentions, to comply
with the direction issued by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in
Fertilisers & Chemicals Travancore Ltd. (supra). Without
the joinder of any of the employees who were found by the
Social Security Officer to be working in the hospital, in my
view, the insurance cases would not be maintainable in the
light of the law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court.
11. If any of the employees are impleaded in the
IC’s, then as rightly contended by the learned Standing Counsel
for the ESI Corporation, the jurisdiction to consider the cases
will be governed by Section 76(1) of the ESI Act, extracted
hereunder :
22
CNR : KLHC010630202018
Ins.Appeal Nos.7,8,9 & 11 of 20182026:KER:53518
“76. Institution of proceedings, etc.–(1)
Subject to the provisions of this Act and any rules
made by the State Government, all proceedings
before the Employees’ Insurance Court shall be
instituted in the Court appointed for the local area
in which the insured person was working at the
time the question or dispute arose.”
As held by this Court in Panickaveettil Sir Sebastian Public
School (supra) if the factual situation is governed by S.76 (1)
of the Act, then Rule 16 of the Employees Insurance Court
Rules, 1958 can have no application. For ready reference the
Rule is also extracted hereunder :
“Rule – 16. Place of suing.
In cases not falling under sub-section (1) of section
76, a proceeding against any person shall be
instituted in the Court within the local limits of
whose jurisdiction.
(a) the opposite party or each of the opposite
parties where there are more than one, at the time
of commencement of the proceedings, actually and
voluntarily resides, or carries on business, or
personally works for gain, or
(b) any of the opposite parties, where there are
more than one, at the time of the commencement
of the proceedings, actually and voluntarily resides,
or carries on business, or personally works for gain,
provided that in such case either the leave of the
court is given, or the opposite parties who do not
reside, carry on business or personally work for
gain, as aforesaid, acquiesce in such institution; or
(c) the cause of action, wholly or in part arose.”
23
CNR : KLHC010630202018
Ins.Appeal Nos.7,8,9 & 11 of 2018
2026:KER:53518
12. ESI Act is a labour welfare legislation.
Provisions of the Act hence deserve to be construed
bearing in mind the interest of the employees. It is
stipulated under S.76 (1) that all proceedings before the
Employees’ Insurance Court shall be instituted in the
Court appointed for the local area in which the insured
person was working at the time the question or dispute
arose, subject to Rules that may be framed by the State
Government. Apparently, the intention is to ensure that
the cases are instituted in the court convenient to the
employees. Opening words of Rule 16 of the Kerala
Rules makes it clear that the said provision would apply
only in cases not covered by S.76(1). Thus, the
requirement unders.76(1) is well-preserved under Rule
16 also. Hence the endevour of the EI Court shall be to
give effect to the provisions of S.76(1) and it shall not
permit the applicants to tinker with the same.
24
CNR : KLHC010630202018
Ins.Appeal Nos.7,8,9 & 11 of 2018
2026:KER:53518
13. It was held in Panickaveettil Sir Sebastian
Public School (supra) as under :
“7. How this will affect the jurisdiction of a court is
the next question. Certainly it will affect the
jurisdiction of the court fundamentally for the
reason that if the interest of a worker or an insured
is involved in a dispute, then S.76 (1) of the Act
makes it very clear that it has to be filed in a court
where he had worked or where he was working or
the question or dispute arose. When the said
principle is applied S.76(1) comes into play. When
S.76(1) comes into play R.16 goes out for the
reason that R.16 starts with the words “in cases not
falling under sub-s.(1) of S.76“. Therefore when
R.16 goes, the contentions raised by the learned
senior counsel cannot be accepted and looked into.
Therefore, I hold that in view of these
developments and as S.76(1) is directly involved,
only the courts stipulated in that section will have
jurisdiction over the matter. Learned counsel
appearing for the Corporation had produced the
notification relating to all courts where they had
conferred the powers exercising the functions under
the E.S.I. Act. It is in order. So as the interest of
the insured is involved S.76(1) will govern the field
and therefore the orders passed by the learned
insurance court have to be set aside and I do so.”
14. I find that an identical situation was
considered by a learned Single Judge of this Court in
Panickaveettil Sir Sebastian Public School (supra). The
25
CNR : KLHC010630202018
Ins.Appeal Nos.7,8,9 & 11 of 2018
2026:KER:53518
said judgment was noted with approval and was followed by a
Division Bench of this Court in Bishop Moore Vidyapith
(supra). In view of the principles laid down in those cases, I am
of the view that the impugned orders cannot be sustained.
15. Given the preceding discussion, impleadment of
employees or their unions is indispensable in the Insurance
Cases pertinent to these appeals. If that is the case, the E.I
Court, Alappuzha, would not have jurisdiction to entertain those
cases. Substantial questions of law raised in these appeals are
hence answered in favour of the appellant corporation.
16. Accordingly, the appeals are allowed, orders
impugned in all these appeals are set aside.
17. Applicants in the Insurance Cases shall
implead all employees or at least some of them in
representative capacity or else their unions in all Insurance
Cases involved in these appeals. The E.I Court, Alappuzha, is
directed to transfer I.C. No.121/2013, 6/2017, 14/2017 and
32/2017 to the E.I Court Idukki forthwith.
26
CNR : KLHC010630202018
Ins.Appeal Nos.7,8,9 & 11 of 2018
2026:KER:53518
18. The E.I. Court, Idukki, on receipt of the files,
shall issue notice to the parties, fixing date of appearance and
thereafter proceed with the matter in accordance with law,
once the employees are impleaded as directed above.
Appeals are allowed as above.
Sd/-
S.MANU
sos JUDGE
27
CNR : KLHC010630202018
Ins.Appeal Nos.7,8,9 & 11 of 2018
2026:KER:53518
APPENDIX OF INS.APP NO. 11 OF 2018
PETITIONER'S ANNEXURES
ANNEXURE I TRUE COPY OF THE NOTIFICATION GO(P) NO.
103/2016/LBR DATED 02.07.2016 ISSUED BY
THE GOVERNMENT OF KERALA.
