REGIONAL DIRECTOR E S I Vs. MIRF LTD

JUDGEMENT

(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.) SHRI T.V. Ajayakumar, learned counsel for the appellant would contend that what Section 76 prescribes, does not relate to territorial jurisdiction, but on the other hand, it goes to the inherent lack of jurisdiction. In other words, it is his argument that Section 76 of the Act provides for jurisdiction in respect of the subject matter and, therefore, the earlier order passed by the Insurance Court should have been ignored in the light of the exposition of the law by this Court it has no jurisdiction. In this connection, counsel drew our attention to the following decisions: