2025:KER:29093 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE N.NAGARESH FRIDAY, THE 4TH DAY OF APRIL 2025 / 14TH CHAITHRA, 1947 RP NO. 186 OF 2025 AGAINST THE JUDGMENT IN WP(C) NO.14475 OF 2024 OF HIGH COURT OF KERALA REVIEW PETITIONER/PETITIONER: M/S SOLVAR WIRES (P) LTD CHEMICAL LNDUSTRIES ESTATE. AROOR, ALAPPUZHA, REPRESENTED BY ITS DIRECTOR MR.JIMMY JOSE. S/O LATE JOSE THOMAS, AGED 49 YEARS, G-245 , PANAMPILLY NAGAR, KOCHI, PIN - 682036 BY ADVS. S.JAMAL GIGIMON ISSAC RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENT: 1 THE REGIONAL DIRECTOR ESI CORPORATION,PANCHDEEP BHAVAN, NORTH SWARAJ ROAD. THRISSUR, PIN - 680020 2 THE RECOVERY OFFICER SUB-REGIONAL OFFICE, ESI CORPORATION. KALOOR, ERNAKULAM, PIN - 682017 2025:KER:29093 RP NO.186 of 2025 in W.P.(C) No.14475 of 2024 2 BY ADVS. SRI. ADARSH KUMAR SRI.T.V.AJAYA KUMAR THIS REVIEW PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 04.04.2025, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: 2025:KER:29093 RP NO.186 of 2025 in W.P.(C) No.14475 of 2024 3 ORDER Dated this the 4th day of April, 2025 The writ petition was filed by the Company seeking to direct the 2nd respondent-Recovery Officer, ESI to refrain from proceedings under Ext.P4 against a time barred claim. 2. This Court noted that the petitioner has an efficacious alternate remedy before the Insurance Court. Accordingly, the petitioner was relegated to approach the Insurance Court. 3. The petitioner in the writ petition has come up with the Review Petition submitting that there is an error apparent on the face of the records of the case. The contention of the petitioner is that at the time of arguments, the petitioner had relied on a Division Bench judgment of this Court in Regional Director, ESI Corporation and another v. Alagappa 2025:KER:29093 RP NO.186 of 2025 in W.P.(C) No.14475 of 2024 4 Textiles (Cochin) Mills [2016 (3) KHC 14]. In the said Division Bench judgment, this Court had held that recovery after six years period is unreasonable. This judgment is not taken note of by this Court while delivering the judgment. 4. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Standing Counsel representing the respondents. 5. Going through the judgment, I find that this Court has not adjudicated the matter on merits. This Court dismissed the writ petition leaving liberty to the petitioner to resort to other remedies available to him. The judgment cannot be found fault with. However, if the petitioner has a case that the recovery is time barred in the light of the judgment of this Court in Regional Director, ESI Corporation and another (supra), the petitioner will be free to urge the said point before the Appellate Tribunal. 2025:KER:29093 RP NO.186 of 2025 in W.P.(C) No.14475 of 2024 5 With the said observation, the Review Petition is dismissed. Counsel for the petitioner submits that in view of the pendency of the writ petition and Review Petition, an Appeal may now be belated. If the petitioner is moving the Court for restoration of Appeal, the time during which the writ petition and Review Petition were pending before this Court can be condoned treating that the petitioner has been bonafide prosecuting the matter before this Court. Sd/- N.NAGARESH JUDGE hmh