- (1.) The petitioner was served with notices of demand requiring it to deposit a total sum of Rs. 84,586.74 as its contribution under the Employees' State Insurance Act, 1948 (hereinafter referred to as the Act.). The State Government had by a notificatin dated 22nd Feb, 1966, appointed Additional District Magistrates (Judicial) to be the Presiding Officers of the Employees' Insurance Court constituted under S. 74 of the Act An application was moved by the petitioner purporting to be under Ss. 75, 76 and 77 of the Act before the Chief Judicial Magistrrate, Allahabad (respondent No. 3) challenging the aforesaid demand. Respondent no.3 by an order dated 27th.Aug, 1974, held that since the power to act as Employees' Insurance Court under S. 74 of the Act had been conferred on Additonal District Magistrates (Judicial) and that post had been abolished the application could not be decided by him inasmuch as he was not an Additional District Magistrate (Judicial) but was a Chief Judicial Magistrate. This writ petition -was filed by the petitioner challenging the aforesaid order passed by respondent No. 3.
(2.) It appears that during the pendency of the writ petition the State Government issued another notification dated 17th Feb, 1975, whereby it conferred the power of Employees' Insurance Court on all the executive magistrates in certain districts including Allahabad where the petitioner carries on its business. An application for amendment was made by the petitioner on 6th May, 1975, with a prayer that the notification dated 17th Feb, 1975, copy whereof had been attached as Annexure VII, may be quashed. The ground on which this notification is sought to be quashed is that sub-s. (3) of S. 74 contemplates that only such person can be appointed to be the presiding officer of Employees' Insurance Court who is or has been a Judicial Officer or is a legal practitioner of five years' standing. On that application notice was issued on 29th July, 1975.
(3.) Having heard counsel for the parties we find that the amendment application deserves to be allowed and it is accordingly allowed. We have heard counsel for the parties on the basis of the amended writ petition.;