T.P.S.Mann, J. - (1.) THE Regional Director of Employees' State Insurance Corporation passed an order on 2.6.1978 directing the District Collector, Ludhiana for effecting the recovery of an amount of Rs. 17003/ - from the Appellant -firm as contributions including interest. The said order was challenged by the Appellants by filing an application under Section 75(i)(g) of the Employees' State Insurance Act (hereinafter referred to as the "the Act'), on the ground that it had already made a representation to the Regional Director on 23.2.1978 that overtime wages were Rs. 47618.41p. and on that amount the contributions had already been paid and the difference payable was only Rs. 1760.l0p. and including the amount of short payments, the total amount payable was Rs. 2249/ -, which had been paid and a request had been made to withdraw the recovery proceedings initiated by the District Collector, Ludhiana. It was also pleaded that no wages had been paid to the employee of the firm, as alleged, rather the work was got done from independent contractors, who were mot covered by the definition of the term "employee" as contained in Section 2(9) of the Act. Furthermore, no amount of contributions was payable on the entire overtime wages in the light of the Schedule in case the rate of wages did not change by adding overtime payments. The Regional Director of the Respondent -Corporation was under an obligation to afford reasonable opportunity to the Appellants of being heard before resorting to ad hoc assessment and issuing the recovery papers as the same was in violation of the principles of natural justice. Also, the claim for the contribution, pertaining to the period 1.4.1973 to 31.3.1974 and 1.8.1973 to 31.1.1975, was barred by the period of limitation under Section 77(i)(a) of the Act. Accordingly, prayer was made for quashing the order of the Regional Director of the Respondent -Corporation directing the recovery of Rs. 17.003/ - through the Collector. The Respondent -Corporation opposed the petition by filing a written statement pleading therein that the recoveries sought to be effected were perfectly legal and justified. No work was got done by the Appellant -firm from private contractors, as alleged. The dues were payable on the amounts shown to have been paid by the firm. It was denied that overtime wages were not liable for contribution. It was also denied that the claim from 1.4.1973 to 31.3.1974 and 1.8.1973 to 31.1.1975 was barred by time as the dues were recoverable as arrears of land revenue and the law of limitation did not apply to such recoveries.
(2.) ON the pleadings of the parties, following issues were framed: 1. Whether the recovery in question is illegal and bad and ultra vires? OPA. 2. Relief. Later on, following additional issue was also framed: Additional Issue - Whether the plaint (sic) is time barred? OPD (sic) While the firm produced AW1 L.R. Wadhawa AW2 Inder Mohan Dhanda, partner of the firm and AW3 Jiwa Singh in support of its case, the Corporation examined RW1 Hari Mitra, Insurance Inspector and RW2 Harbinder Kumar, U.D.C., E.S.I. Corporation.
(3.) AFTER going through the pleadings and the evidence led by the parties on the same, learned Employees' Insurance Court vide impugned order dated 18.10.1982 held that the recovery in question was legal and neither bad nor ultra vires. Moreover, the demand being made by the Corporation was not barred by time. Accordingly, the petition filed by Appellants under Section 75(i)(g) of the Act for quashing of the order of the Regional Director of the Respondent -Corporation for effecting the recovery of Rs. 17003/ - was dismissed with costs, which were assessed at Rs. 150/ -. Hence, the present appeal on behalf of the firm and its managing partner in this Court under Section 82 of the Act.;