Employees State Insurance Corporation vs M/s. Saha Soap Factory and Others

Mookerjee, J.—The Employees'' State Insurance Corporation being, aggrieved by, the order, dated, February 21, 1963 dismissing its application filed u/s 77 of the Employees'' State Insurance Act, 1948, has presented this appeal u/s 80 of the said Act. In our view, the learned Judge of the Employees'' State Insurance Court has clearly committed a substantial error of law by holding that the aforesaid application u/s 77 of the Act was barred by limitation. The said application was filed on 12th April, 1962 and, therefore, the point for consideration in this appeal is whether any of the Articles in the First Schedule of the Limitation Act, 1908 and in particular Article 62 or Article 181 of the said Act would apply to such an application before the Employees'' Insurance Court. The Employees'' Insurance Court has been constituted u/s 74(1) of the Employees'' State Insurance Act, 1948 for adjudicating disputes and claims under Chapter VI of the said Act. It is a Court of Special Jurisdiction and is not among the hierarchy of the Courts constituted under the Bengal, Agra and Assam Civil Courts Act read with the CPC 1908. The Employees'' Insurance Court u/s 78 of the Act has powers of a Civil Court for the purposes of summoning and enforcing the attendance of witnesses, compelling the discovery and production of documents and material objects, administering oath and recording evidence and such Court shall be deemed to be a Civil Court within the meaning of Section 195and Chapter 35 of the Code of Criminal Procedure Code, 1898. Thus, the said Court has been given some and not all the powers of civil court for the purposes specified in the said sub-section and not in all matters set out in the Code of Civil Procedure. The Employees'' Insurance Court is required to follow procedure as may be prescribed by rules made u/s 78(2) of the Act. Chapter VI of the Act which deals with the adjudication of disputes and claims, at the material time did not prescribe any limitation for filing of an application for institution of a proceeding under the said Act. During the pendency of this Appeal the sub-section (1A) was inserted in section 77 of the Act (vide section 33 of the Employees'' State Insurance Amendment Act, 1966). Prima facie, the said subsection (1A) of section 77 which prescribes that every application before the Employees'' Insurance Court shall be made within a period of three years from the date on which the cause of action arose was not given retrospective effect. Therefore, in the present case the question of limitation ought to be decided in the context of law as it stood before the commencement of the Employees'' State Insurance Amendment Act, 1966.

The Employees'' Insurance Court is a Court of Special Jurisdiction and not a civil court. Therefore, having regard to the sections 4, 5 and 29 of the Limitation Act, 1908, none of the Articles mentioned in Schedule 1 of the said Limitation Act, 1908 would apply to an application filed before the Employees'' Insurance Court. It may be pointed out that in case of an appeal u/s 82 of the said Act, under sub-section (3) of the said section a period of limitation was prescribed while the statute did not at the relevant point of time prescribe any period of limitation in case of riling an application before the Employees'' Insurance Court.

For the above reasons, it is unnecessary for us to deal in extenso with the reasons given by the court below for holding that the instant application was barred by limitation. It would be sufficient to observe that it had been settled by long catena of decisions that Article 181 of the Limitation Act 1908 was applicable only to applications made under the CPC (vide S Sha Mulchand and Co. Ltd. (In Liquidation) Vs. Jawahar Mills Ltd., , Bombay Gas Co. Ltd. Vs. Gopal Bhiva and Others, and Wazirchand Mahajan and Another Vs. Union of India (UOI), ). A.N. Roy, C.J., while considering the effect of Article 137 of the Limitation Act, 1963 had occasion to refer to some of these decisions and point out the difference between old Article181 and the new Article 137 and the learned Chief Justice had also indicated the reasons why unlike the earlier Article the latter Article would apply to all applications before Civil Court (vide paragraphs 18 to 22). For the reasons already given, we have come to the conclusion that the Employees'' Insurance Court is not a Civil Court. We hold that the court below had committed substantial error of law by dismissing the application in limine on the ground of limitation. Therefore, this appeal ought to be allowed. We express no opinion regarding any other issues involved in the matter and the court below is directed to expeditiously decide the remaining issue in accordance with law.

The view we have taken in this case is in accord with the views on the question of limitation expressed in various reported decisions of the different High Courts. (vide The Employees'' State Insurance Corporation, Bombay Vs. Bharat Barrel and Drum Manufacturing Co. Private Ltd. and Another, . (See also Adoni Cotton Mills Ltd. vs. The Employees'' State Insurance Corporation 1975 Labour & Industrial Cases 1037, The E.S.I. Corporation vs. M/s. United Electrical Industries Ltd. 1976 Labour & Industrial Cases 251, Employees'' State Insurance Corporation Vs. Asian Paints India Ltd. and another, . The Regional Director, Government of India v. N.G. Iyer and Another 1972 LIC 784). We respectfully agree with the views expressed in the reported decision. We accordingly allow this appeal, set aside the order complained of and remit the matter back to the court below for disposal of the application in accordance with law and in the light of the observations made in our judgment. There will be no order as to costs.

Let a copy of this order prepared by the office be sent down to the court below along with the records.

Decree need not be drawn up.