LAWS(KAR)-1970-9-20

EMPLOYEES STATE INSURANCE CORPORATION Vs. WEBBS MOTOR SCOOTER MART

Decided On September 22, 1970
EMPLOYEES STATE INSURANCE CORPORATION Appellant
V/S
WEBBS MOTOR SCOOTER MART Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The Employees' State Insurance Corporation, Bangalore, to be hereinafter referred to as the 'Corporation', under S.75(2) of the Employees' State Insurance Act, 1948, to be hereinafter referred to as the 'Act', filed two applications before the Employees' State Insurance Court, Bangalore. The two applications were registered as applications Nos. 48 and 49 of 1965. The Corporation by these two applications claimed from the respondents, viz., M/s.Webb's Motor Scooter Mart (in application No.48/65) and M/s.Webb's Farm Mechanisation (in application No.49/65) employees' contribution payable by them for a period from 1-1-1962 to 29-5-1965. The date of these two applications is 2-11-1965. For three years immediately prior to the date of the applications, the respondents, though disputed, paid the employees' contribution. The Employees' State Insurance Court held that in view of R.17 of the Rules framed bv the State Government by virtue of the powers vested in them under S.96 of the Act the respondents were not liable to pay employees' contribution in resnect of the period prior to 2-11-1962 and incidentallv held that the rule was intra vires. Aggrieved by this decision, the Corporation has filed these two appeals under S.82 of the Act.

(2.) The only ground urged in these appeals is that R.17 prescribing a period of three years is ultra vires and therefore the same is liable to be struck down and if so the respondents are liable to pay the employees' contribution even for the period prior to 2-11-1962.

(3.) In view of the decision of the Supreme Court in M/s.Venkataraman & Co. v State of Madras, AIR 1966 SC 1089, it is not open to the appellant to question in these appeals filed under the statute the vires of the Act or any rules framed hereunder. In the case of Venkataraman & Co.(1), which was a case under the Income Tax Act, this is what the Supreme Court said on this question.