2004 INSC 0558
                                    SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

                                           C.K. Gopalakrishnan

                                                      Vs.

                                Employees State Insurance Corporation

                                           Crl.A.No.239 of 1999

                               (Doraiswamy Raju and Arijit Pasayat JJ.)

                                                 21.04.2004

                                                JUDGMENT

Doraiswamy Raju, J.

1. The above appeal has been filed against the judgment of a learned Single Judge of the
High Court of Kerala dated 30.06.1998 in Criminal Appeal No.219 of 1994 whereunder the
learned Single Judge has, while reversing the verdict of acquittal returned by the learned
Sessions Judge, has restored the conviction and sentence imposed by the learned Trial Judge.
The learned Trial Judge, Judicial Ist Class Magistrate, Cannanore, taking note of the default
committed in the payment of contributions relating to the Mills in question under the Act, has
found the appellant guilty and sentenced him to undergo simple imprisonment for one month
and, in addition, to pay a fine of Rs.2, 000/- under Section 85(i)(b) of the Employees State
Insurance Act, 1948, as it was in force at the relevant point of time.

2. Heard the learned counsel appearing on either side.

3. Learned counsel appearing on either side tried to justify their respective stand adverting to
the relevant portions of the judgments of the courts below in support thereof. Though, Mr.
T.L.V. Iyer, learned senior counsel for the appellant tried to contend that the appellant may
not even satisfy the definition of 'Principal Employer', as contained in Section 2 (17) of the
Act, as was held by the learned Sessions Judge, we are unable to persuade ourselves to agree
with the said claim. The inclusive definition, viewed in the context or the nature of activities
performed and the position admittedly held in the hierarchy of officers of the Mill in question
would very much fall within the said definition. At the same time, so far as the punishment
of sentence is concerned, keeping in view the fact that the amounts have been subsequently
paid and other peculiar facts found noticed by the courts below, we consider that interest of
justice would be better served if only the sentence of fine alone is allowed to stand and that
the simple imprisonment of one month need not be inflicted. The amount of fine is said to
have been already paid as well. The punishment of simple imprisonment for one month alone
is set aside and to this extent, the appeal shall stand partly allowed and the decision of the
High Court shall stand modified.

1  SpotLaw