Beg, C.J. - (1.) This appeal by special leave arises out of the proceedings initiated on 12-7-1961 by the appellant Corporation, under S. 75 of the Employees State Insurance Act, 1948 (hereinafter referred to as the Act), claiming contributions from the respondents for various periods between 27-9-1959 and 31-3-1965, which they are liable to pay under S. 40 of the Act.
(2.) It appears that the respondents employers failed to maintain the registers or records and to submit returns of wages paid as required under S. 44 of the Act. Hence, the Insurance Court, which was called upon to adjudicate under S. 75 (1) (c) of the Act, on the matter in dispute, found itself unable to decide the question in issue. It dismissed the application on the ground that there was no provision for deciding such a dispute on an "ad hoc basis." We fail to understand what is precisely meant by "ad hoc basis." We find that S. 75 (2) of the Act provides, inter alia, that a claim for the recovery of contributions shall be decided by the Employees Insurance Court. Not only is the mandatory duty cast it to decide such disputes, but it is armed with the powers of a Civil Court, including summoning and enforcing the attendance of witnesses, compelling the discovery and production of documents and material objects, under S. 78 of the Act.
(3.) The powers of the Corporation are given in S. 45A of the Act, introduced by Act 44 of 1966, whereby the Corporation may, on the basis of the information available to it, determine the amount of contributions payable and make necessary demands. Apparently, the scheme of the Act, after the amendment, is that the Corporation itself should, in a case where there is omission on the part of the employer to maintain records in accordance with S. 44 of the Act, determine the amount of contributions on the strength of such information as it may collect. It can then make the demand. If the employer refuses to comply with the demand so made, the matter can come up before the Employees Insurance Court under S. 75 of the Act. The Court should give the Corporation a direction to perform its duty where it considers that this should be preformed by the Corporation. It cannot decline to perform its own duty because the Corporation has failed to discharge its function.;