INAP No.9/2010 is filed against the preliminary order passed in I.C.No.78/2009, INAP No.13/2010 is filed against the preliminary order passed in I.C.No.64/2009 and INAP No.25/2010 is filed against the preliminary order passed in I.C.No.105/2009 by the E.I.Court, Palakkad. All these insurance cases were filed by the employers challenging the order passed by the Employees State Insurance Corporation (for short ‘the Corporation’) under S.75 of the Employees State Insurance Act (for short ‘the ESI Act’).

2. When the matter came up for consideration, the Corporation raised an objection regarding the territorial jurisdiction of the court to deal with the matters. It was contended that by virtue of the provisions under S.76(1) of the E.S.I. Act the proceedings can be instituted only before the court appointed for the local area in which the insured person was working at the time the question or dispute arose. That was seriously challenged by the applicants before the E.I. Court and after elaborate consideration of the arguments of both sides, the court held that action can be initiated for the reason that the Regional Director representing the Corporation is having his office a