N N. Mithal, J. - (1.) THESE two F. A. F. Os are directed against an order passed by the Employees Insurance Court refusing to grant an ad-interim injunction to the appellant restraining the respondents from releasing certain amounts imposed by it as damages for delay in depositing contribution money. The appellant company is engaged in the manufacture of steel and is duly registered as a Factory under the Employees State Insurance Act, hereinafter 'the Act', for short. According to the Employees State Insurance Corporation (hereinafter referred to as the 'Corporation') was of the view that the appellant had failed to deposit certain contribution as required under the law and therefore after giving a shew cause notice damages amounting to Rs. 4,518/- in one case and Rs. 19,788/-for a different period in the other case, were imposed on the appellant. When recovery proceedings were issued the appellant initiated proceedings before the Employees Insurance Court (Referred to as the Insurance Court hereinafter). In those proceedings an application was also moved for issue of an injunction to restrain the corporation from realising the amount of damages imposed by it. The aforesaid application having been dismissed the present appeals have been filed.
(2.) A preliminary objection about maintainability of this appeal has been taken by Sri B. N. Asthana learned counsel appearing for the Corporation. According to him neither any proceeding under Sec. 76 could lie for challenging the recovery proceedings in respect of damages consequent to the delay iu depositing the employees contribution, nor the Insurance Court had any jurisdiction to entertain an application for ad-interim injunction and that an order refusing the injunction was not appealable under Sec. 82 of the Act. Of the three objections that have been raised, I will leave the first as that matter has yet to be considered by the court below and is left to be decided by it in due course. The answer to the second question will depend on the fact whether the Insurance Court is a Court or a tribunal and had inherent powers to issue an injunction. In order to appreciate this aspect, it will be better to first examine the scheme of Ch. VI of the Act consisting of Sees. 74 to 82 dealing with establishment and power of the Insurance Court. Section 74 empowers the State Govt, to establish Employees insurance Court for a specified local area and appoint a person having certain qualification to be the Judge of such court. Section 75 enumerates matters that may be decided by it and excludes the jurisdiction of the Civil courts in matters covered by this section. Section 77 provides for the mode of such proceedings while Sec. 78 invests the Insurance Court with powers of the Civil court in certain matters, such as summoning and endorcing the attendance of witness etc. and within the meaning of Sec. 195 of Ch, XXXV of the Cr. P. C. also it shall be deemed to be a Civil court. The procedure to be followed by the Insurance Court would be such as may be prescribed by the rules framed by the State Govt. Section 79 permits appearance in the court through legal practitioner.
(3.) THUS from a perusal of the above scheme of the Act, it will be apparent that the Insurance Court is a tribunal established under a statute with powers to adjudicate certain matters finally in a judicial manner. Its presiding officers are persons having judicial training. Such a Tribunal thus possessed all the trappings of a 'Court' as understood in common parlance. Even the procedure before it in certain respects is the same as provided in the Code of Civil Procedure Yet all this cannot impress it with the status of a court of ordinary civil jurisdiction which also derive their authority from the State to discharge its judicial functions. The powers and jurisdiction of the Tribunal must normally be discovered from within the provisions of the Act which created or established it. With the advancement of society and the developing complexities of social and economic life of the people has become increasingly necessary to establish courts or tribunals for specific purposes under various statutes. By a slow process of legislative activity of the State the tribunals, though initially established for carrying out only non judicial and purely administrative functions, with the passage of time have come to be bestowed with the power to carry out judicial functions of the State in limited spheres. Thus, at present there is not much of a difference between the powers exercised by the ordinary courts of civil jurisdiction and some of the tribunals established under specific statutes, which to a large extent are invested with powers to exercise judicial functions of the State. Though such tribunals may not as yet have earned the status of a court exercising civil jurisdiction, but to a large measure, they also perform like functions. The distinctions between the court and tribunal is even decreasing and even some of the tribunals are sometimes loosely called Courts. Mere nomenclature of a "Court" however cannot make the tribunal a 'court' of ordinary civil jurisdiction. This will largely depend upon the nature of the function performed by it and the powers that may be conferred upon it. When these tribunals are invested with powers to decide certain disputes in a fair and even handed manner and derive their authority from the State, I see no reason why such tribunals be not deemed to be Courts possessing inherent powers like an ordinary civil court ? After all tribunal of this nature also carries out the same functions as courts of ordinary civil jurisdiction, though in respect of limited class of cases falling within its jurisdiction.;