SALEM MALAI MURASU Vs. EMPLOYEES STATE INSURANCE CORPORATION THROUGH THE MANAGER AND ANR.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THESE two appeals arise out of a common order dated 26th December, 1970 of the Employees' Insurance Court (District Court) Salem in respect of two applications filed under Section 75 (2) of the Employees' State Insurance Act, 1948. One was filed by the Employees' State Insurance Corporation and the other by Salem Malai Murasu. Both substantially raise the same question, viz., whether Salem Malai Murasu (the appellant in these appeals) was liable to pay employees contribution for the period 1st April, 1960 to 30th June, 1964, in respect of the Publishing or Managerial Section. Malai Murasu is engaged in the publication of the Tamil Daily Malai Murasu. It has three departments, (1) Editorial, (2) Printing and (3) Publishing, or Managerial. Its offices are located at No. 6, Tiruchi Main Road, Salem -1 The Insurance Court held that Malai Murasu was liable to pay the contribution demanded and these two appeals have been preferred by Salem Malai Murasu.

(2.) ONE of the defences of Malai Murasu was that the claim of the Corporation to levy contribution was time -barred. Here, it is necessary to mention that a new provision, Section 77 (1 -A) was added by Act XLIV of 1966 with effect from 28th January, 1968 and it says that every application under Section 75 (2) shall be made within three years from the date on which the cause of action arose. Here, E. I. A. No. 2 of 1966 had been filed by the Corporation before 28th January, 1968 and so, this provision would not apply. But, the appellant' s contention was that the claim was time -barred under Rule 17 of the Rules framed under the Act. That Rule ran thus: Every application to the Court shall be brought within twelve months from the date on which the cause of action arose or, as the case may be, the claim became due ;

(3.) THE contention of Malai Murasu before the Insurance Court was that a major portion of the claim, if not the whole claim, had arisen more than 12 months before the date of the application. But, Rule 17 of the Rules was held to be ultra vires in a Bench decision of this Court in Solar Works v. E. S. I. Corporation, Madras : (1963)IILLJ597Mad, the ground of the decision being that the Act itself did not expressly permit the Government to publish any rules regarding limitation. The same view was taken by a Bench of the Bombay High Court in Employees' State Insurance Corporation v. Bharat Barrel and Drum Manufacturing Company : (1967)ILLJ625Bom, and that was affirmed by the Supreme Court in Bharat Barrel and Drum Manufacturing Company Private Limited v. Employees' State Insurance Corporation : (1971)IILLJ647SC. These decisions have been noticed in the decision of Kailasam and N. S. Ramaswami, JJ., in Dhala Tanning Company v. E.S.I. Corporation : (1974)1MLJ71. The above decision also holds that Article 137 of the Limitation Act, 1963 will not be applicable to an application under Section 75 (2) of the Act, because the Insurance Court which is a statutory body is not a regular Court. In view of these decisions, Sri K. Ramaswami, learned Counsel appearing for the appellants, has to concede that there is no specific article of limitation applicable at all and therefore, he does not press the point of limitation.