Kerala High Court
M/S. Seventh Day Adventist Hospital vs State Of Kerala on 8 February, 2016
Author: P.N.Ravindran
Bench: P.N.Ravindran, K.Ramakrishnan
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT:
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE P.N.RAVINDRAN
&
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.RAMAKRISHNAN
FRIDAY,THE 26TH DAY OF FEBRUARY 2016/7TH PHALGUNA, 1937
WA.No. 387 of 2016 () IN WP(C).4694/2016
------------------------------------------
AGAINST THE ORDER IN WP(C) 4694/2016 of HIGH COURT OF KERALA DATED 8.2.2016
APPELLANT/PETITIONER:
----------------------------------------------
M/S. SEVENTH DAY ADVENTIST HOSPITAL,
KANNIYAMPURAM P.O., OTTAPPALAM, PALAKKAD-679 104,
REPRESENTED BY ITS BUSINESS MANAGER MR.EDWARD SUNDAR RAJ.
BY ADVS.SRI.SHINU J.PILLAI
SMT.S.SUJA
SMT.SIBY.P.JOSE
SMT.SHADHIYA ELIZABETH GEORGE
RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS :
------------------------------------------------------
1. STATE OF KERALA
REPRESENTED BY THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT
LABOUR AND REHABILITATION DEPARTMENT
GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT,THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.
2. EMPLOYEES STATE INSURANCE CORPORATION
REGIONAL OFFICE (KERALA), "PANCHADEEP BHAVAN"
NORTH SWARAJ ROUND, THRISSUR-680 020
REPRESENTED BY ITS REGIONAL DIRECTOR.
R1 BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI.M.MUHAMMED SHAFI
R2 BY SRI.P.SANKARANKUTTY NAIR, SC, ESI CORPN
THIS WRIT APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 26-02-2016, THE
COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
vpv
P.N.RAVINDRAN & K.RAMAKRISHNAN, JJ.
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
W.A.No.387 of 2016
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
Dated this the 26th day of February, 2016
JUDGMENT
P.N.Ravindran, J.
The appellant is the petitioner in W.P.(C)No.4694 of 2016 on the file of this court. The said writ petition was filed challenging Exts.P5 and P6 orders and Exts.P11 and P12 notices and praying for an order directing the State of Kerala to reconsider Exts.P3 and P4 applications filed by the petitioner for exemption from the provisions of the Employees State Insurance Act, 1948. The petitioner had also prayed for an interim order staying recovery pursuant to Exts.P5 and P6 orders.
2. The learned single Judge before whom the writ petition came up for admission hearing, passed an interim order staying recovery subject to the condition that the amount demanded in Exts.P11 to P14 notices issued by the recovery officer of the Employees' State Insurance Corporation shall be paid in three equal monthly installments commencing from 15.2.2016. It was also observed that reimbursement would depend on the final remittance. The writ petitioner has filed this appeal challenging the aforesaid interim order W.A.No.387 of 2016 -:2:- contending that the learned single Judge should have granted an unconditional order of stay.
3. After hearing learned counsel appearing on both sides at length, we are not satisfied that the appellant has made out any ground warranting interference with the discretion exercised by the learned single Judge. The impugned orders disclose that the claim for exemption was rejected on the ground that the benefits provided by the appellant hospital are not equal to or superior to the benefits provided by the Employees' State Insurance Corporation. Whether the rejection is tenable or not is a matter which can be decided only when the writ petition is finally heard. It is on the premise that the claim for exemption stands rejected that the demand for payment under the Employees State Insurance Act was made. The amount due as on the date on which the writ petition was filed was Rs.30,58,676/- and interest thereon including penal interest. The learned single Judge has after considering the contentions raised in the writ petition declined to grant an unconditional order of stay and has permitted the appellant to deposit the amount demanded in three equal monthly installments commencing from 15.2.2016. Having given anxious consideration to the submissions made at the Bar, we are not persuaded that any interference is called for with the exercise of discretion by the learned W.A.No.387 of 2016 -:3:- single Judge except to the extent of granting the appellant an opportunity to pay the amount demanded in Exts.P11 to P14 notices in six equal monthly installments commencing from 4th of April, 2016.
We accordingly dispose of this writ appeal by granting the appellant/petitioner time to pay the amount demanded in Exts.P11 to P14 notices in six equal monthly installments commencing from 4.4.2016. Needless to say, such payment will subject to the outcome of the writ petition. If the petitioner commits default in remitting any two consecutive installments, it will be open to the Employees' State Insurance Corporation to proceed to recover the balance amount outstanding in lump. No costs.
Sd/-
P.N.RAVINDRAN JUDGE Sd/-
K.RAMAKRISHNAN JUDGE /true copy/ P.A. to Judge vpv