K.M. Joseph, J.

1. The Appeal is filed by the Regional Director of E.S.I. Corporation challenging an order passed by the Employees’ Insurance Court, Palakkad. By the impugned order the application filed by the appellant seeking transfer of the case to the Employees’ Insurance Court, Idukki has been dismissed. The E.I. Court, Palakkad finds that the appellant cannot contend that the court at Palakkad had no jurisdiction, as that point has been decided by the preliminary order dated 23.11.2009. It is stated that the appellant had not challenged that order of the court by filing any appeal and the same has become final. It is further reasoned that the court cannot review the above order on the basis of the subsequent judgments of the High Court and the Supreme Court in some of the cases. Apparently, the court has drawn sustenance from the Explanation to Order 47 Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure. It is further found that the Judgment of a learned Single Judge of this Court dated 7.10.2010 has no application or relevance. It is found that the Corporation has no case either in its preliminary objection or in the present I.A. that Section 76 is applicable and in fact, accepting the preliminary order, the Corporation has filed written objection on the merit of the case.

2. We heard Shri T.V. Ajayakumar, learned counsel for the appellant and Shri Saji Varghese, learned counsel appearing for the respondent. We also heard Advocate Shri K.P. Sreekumar as Amicus Curiae, in view of the issues which were projected by the counsel for the appellant.

3. It is necessary to advert to certain provisions contained in the Employees’ State Insurance Act, 1948 (hereinafter referred to as the Act). Section 76 of the Act reads as follows:

“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.

(2) If the Court is satisfied that any matter arising out of any proceeding pending before it can be more conveniently dealt with by any other Employees’ Insurance Court in the same State, it may, subject to any rules made by the State Government in this behalf, order such matter to be transferred to such other Court for disposal and shall forthwith transmit to such other court the records connected with that matter.

(3) The State Government may transfer any matter pending before any Employees’ Insurance Court in the State to any such Court in another State with the consent of the State Government of that State.

(4) The court to which any matter is transferred under sub-section (2) or sub-section (3) shall continue the proceedings as if they had been originally instituted in it.”

Section 78 reads as follows:

“78. Powers of Employees’ Insurance Court.- (1) The Employees’ Insurance Court shall have all the powers of a Civil Court for the purposes of summoning and enforcing the attendance of witnesses, compelling the discovery and production of documents and material objects, administering oath and recording evidence and such court shall be deemed to be a Civil Court within the meaning of Section 195 and Chapter XXVI of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2) of 1974).

(2) The Employees’ Insurance Court shall follow such procedure as may be prescribed by rules made by the State Government.

(3) All costs incidental to any proceeding before an Employees’ Insurance Court shall, subject to such rules as may be made in this behalf by the State Government, be in the discretion of the court.

(4) An order of the Employees’ Insurance Court shall be enforceable as if it were a decree passed in a suit by a Civil Court.”

Rule 16 of the Rules reads as follows:

“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