The main legal point established in the judgment is the requirement to implead workers in proceedings and the application of Section 76 of the Employees' State Insurance Act in such cases.

K. M. Joseph, J.

This Appeal is filed under Section 82 (2) of the Employees' State Insurance Act (hereinafter referred to as the Act). The appellants are the Regional Director of the ESI Corporation (hereinafter referred to as the Corporation) and its Recovery Officer. They challenge a preliminary order passed by the Insurance Court, Palakkad, finding that it had jurisdiction in the matter. The respondent/applicant challenged the applicability of the Act to its school, that is situated in Alappuzha District. The appellants raised a preliminary objection, namely since the establishment wherein the 'insured' are working, is situated in Alappuzha District, the Court at Palakkad does not have jurisdiction.

Reasoning and finding of the Court:

2. Section 74 of the Act provides for the constitution of the Court for such local area as may be specified in the Notification. Section 75 of the Act provides for the disputes that can be decided by the Court. Section 76 of the Act provides for the Court where the proceedings have to be instituted. Thereafter, it is noted that Section 75 contemplates disputes between the principal employer and the Corporation, between employees and the Corporation and between the principal employer and the immediate employer and their employees and between principal employer and the immediate employer being resolved. Thereafter, the Court referred to Rule 16 of the Kerala Employees' Insurance Court Rules, 1958 (hereinafter referred to as the Rules). The Court further reasoned that in view of the provisions of Rule 16 of the Rules, cases not covered by Section 76 (1) of the Act, should be filed in the Courts where there is jurisdiction under Rule 16. The Court also reasoned that the appellants admit that principal office of the Corporation in Kerala is the Regional Office at Thrissur and its principal Officer is the Regional Director and, therefore, he is the competent Officer to represent the Corporation in proceedings under Sections 75, 76 and 77 and, therefore, the application is filed against the property party. There are other observations which need not detain us in view of the contentions raise by the parties before us.

Contentions of the appellants:

3. Learned counsel for the appellants would contend that the interpretation placed by the Court that Section 76 of the Act and Rule 16 cannot be sustained. He would seek support of the judgment of a learned Single Judge of this Court in E.S.I. Corporation v. Panickaveettil Sir Sebastian Public School, 2010 KHC 6282 : 2010 (4) KLT 976. He further placed reliance on the judgment of the Apex Court which incidentally was also relied on by the learned Single Judge, namely Fertilisers & Chemicals Travancore Ltd. v. E.S.I. Corporation 2009 KHC 5061 : 2009 (3) KLT 946 : 2009 (9) SCC 485 : 2009 (3) CLR 327 : 2009 (123) FLR 491. He would point out that at least some workers must be impleaded in an action by the employer under Section 75, having regard to the decision of the Apex Court referred to in E.S.I. Corporation v. Panickaveettil Sir Sebastian Public School, 2010 KHC 6282 : 2010 (4) KLT 976. He would submit that where Section 76 of the Act applies, Rule 16 cannot operate. He would submit that since in this case, admittedly the establishment of the respondent was in Cherthala coming in the Alappuzha District and the employees are working in Cherthala, it cannot be said that the Court at Palakkad has jurisdiction.

4. Per contra, Shri N. N. Sugunapalan, learned Senior Counsel for the respondent would submit that the order does not require interference. Rule 16 applies in this case. This is for the reason that Section 76 would apply only in a case where the insured employee is a party. He also relied on the Judgment of the Madras High Court in Modern Radio Service v. Regional Director, E.S.I. Corporation, 2006 (1) LLJ 59, in support of his contention.

Section 76(1) of the Act reads as follows:

"76. Institution of proceedings, etc.- (1) Subject to the provisions o