IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SYAM KUMAR V.M.

MONDAY, THE 7^TH DAY OF APRIL 2025 / 17TH CHAITHRA, 1947 INS.APP NO. 1 OF 2015 ARISING OUT OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 22.07.2014 IN I.C.

NO.14/2009 OF E.I.COURT, KOLLAM APPELLANT/1ST RESPONDENT:

ASSISTANT DIRECTOR SUB REGIONAL OFFICE, ESI CORPORATION POLAYATHODU, KOLLAM.

BY ADV SRI.T.V.AJAYAKUMAR RESPONDENTS/APPLICANT & RESPONDENTS 2 AND 3:

1 BIJU RAMESH PROPRIETOR, CHOLA TOURIST HOME ARISTO JUNCTION, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM 695 001

2 K.THANKAPPAN HOUSE KEEPING M/S.CHOLA TOURIST HOME ARISTO JUNCTION, THIRUVANTHAPURAM 695 001

3 M.SANTHOSH KUMAR HOUSE KEEPING M/S.CHOLA TOURIST HOME ARISTO JUNCTION, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM 695 001 BY ADVS.

SMT.PREETHI RAMAKRISHNAN SRI.P.RAMAKRISHNAN, R1 THIS INSURANCE APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON

07.04.2025, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

JUDGMENT

Dated this the 07^th day of April, 2025 This appeal is filed by the Employees State Insurance Corporation challenging the judgment dated 22.07.2014 in Insurance Case No.14 of 2009 of the Employees Insurance (EI) Court, Kollam, setting aside an order issued by the ESI Corporation. By the said order, the ESI Corporation had clubbed together the establishments of the respondents, finding them to possess ‘inter dependency’ and had determined the contribution payable by them on the said basis.

2. Appellant was the 1^st respondent and respondents 1 to 3 were the applicant and respondents 2 and 3 respectively before the EI Court. Appellant is hereinafter referred to as the ESI Corporation and the respondents are referred to as per their status before the EI Court.

3. M/s. Hotel Chola International, Thiruvananthapuram was brought under the coverage of Employees' State Insurance Act, 1948 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') provisionally along with Chola Restaurant and Chola Tourist home. They are functioning from the same premises and are mainly owned and managed by a father and son. As per Ext.B4 preliminary inspection report submitted by the Insurance Inspectors, the establishments were having ‘interdependency’. The coverage and determination passed by the ESI Corporation thus noting interdependency, was challenged before the EI Court, Kollam, in IC No.11 of 1996. The EI Court had quashed the determination and the same in turn was set aside by this Court which directed a fresh consideration of the matter. After remand and hearing of all the parties, an order was passed by the ESI Corporation determining and directing payment of contribution of Rs.6,32,569/- for the period from 01.07.1994 to 31.03.2007 by the principal employers. The said order of determination (Ext.A6 before the court below) was again challenged by the applicant before the EI Court, Kollam, by filing IC No.14 of 2009. Additional opposite parties viz., two employees of the tourist home, were impleaded in the proceedings and the EI Court framed two points for consideration. Both sides adduced evidence. AW1 was examined from the side of the applicant and Exts.A1 to A6 were marked. RW1 to RW3 were examined from the side of the ESI Corporation and Exts.B1 to B5 series were marked. The EI Court, after hearing both sides and considering the evidence tendered, set aside the order holding that the ESI Corporation had failed to controvert the evidence put forth by the applicant and to establish that the establishment attracted coverage by clubbing it along with other establishments. Interdependency was found to be non-existent. The said judgment of the EI Court is impugned in this appeal.

4. The following substantial questions of law are raised for consideration in this appeal:

1. Whether the finding arrived at by the EI Court that the applicant is not liable, contradicts the settled principle of law with respect to clubbing of various units in an establishment as settled by the precedents of the Hon’ble Supreme Court and this Court?

2. Whether the conclusion arrived at by the EI Court in the impugned judgment is