EMPLOYEES STATE INSURANCE CORPORATION Vs. MADHYA PRADESH GOVERNMENT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) IN this appeal under Clause 10 of the Letters Patent from a decision of Sharma j. , the question for determination is as to the vires of Rule 17 of the Madhya pradesh Employees' Insurance Courts Rules, 1953, prescribing the period of limitation for an application to the Employees' Insurance Court constituted under section 74 of the Employees' State Insurance Act, 1948, (hereinafter referred to as the Act ).

(2.) THE appellant, Employees' State Insurance Corporation, made an application under Section 75 of the Act for recovery of Rs. 11,712/-, with interest thereon, from the respondents on account of the contribution payable by them under section 40 of the Act in respect of the employees of the Government Ayurvedic pharmacy. The application was rejected by the Insurance Court on the ground that it had been filed more than twelve months after the accrual of the cause of action and was therefore, barred by time under Rule 17. The Corporation then preferred an appeal in this Court. Sharma J. , who heard the appeal, dismissed it heading that the application of the appellant had been filed beyond the limitation prescribed by Rule 17 and rejecting the appellant's contention that Rule 17 was itself ultra vires the powers of the State Government. In coming to this conclusion, the learned Judge relied on a decision of his own in Employees' State Insurance corporation v. M. B. Roadways, Civ. Misc. Appeal No. 41 of 1961 D/- 5-10-1961, (M. P.-- Gwalior Bench ). In that case he did not think it necessary to decide whether Rule 17 fell within the power conferred on the State Government under section 96 (1) (b) of the Act to frame rules in regard to the procedure to be followed in proceedings before the Insurance Courts, as in his view the rule was referable to the power of the Government under Clause (h) of Section 96 (1) to frame rules with regard to "any other matter which is required or allowed" by the Act to be prescribed by the State Government. The learned Single Judge expressed his view thus:

(3.) IT was argued by Shri Dabir, learned counsel appearing for the appellant, that the scheme of the Act and the provisions contained in Sections 40, 44, 46, 68, 80 and 82 plainly showed that the Legislature did not intend to prescribe any period of limitation for the making of an application to an Insurance Court for recovery of contributions payable by the employer, and an application for that purpose could be made at any time; and that none of the clauses of Section 96 (1) empowered the Government to frame a rule prescribing a period of limitation for the recovery of such contributions.