BHARAT SALT AND CHEMICAL INDUSTRIES LTD. Vs. REGIONAL DIRECTOR, EMPLOYEES STATE INSURANCE CORPORATION AND ANOTHER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Petitioner is a public limited company and has a factory within the town of Cuttack for manufacture of drugs and pharmaceuticals. With a view to extending the application of the Employees' State Insurance Act of 1948 (hereafter referred as the "Act") to the petitioner- company, opposite party No. 1 called for certain information in November, 1970. Without giving an opportunity of being heard to the petitioner-compary opposite party No. 1 required the company to implement the Act from 1-6-1962 and further required to deposit the employer's contribution amounting about Rs. 20,000/- for the period between 1962 and 1970. Petitioner disputed its liability on the ground that it could not come within the purview of the statute. Ultimately it initiated a proceeding before the learned District Judge of Cuttack as the Insurance Court within the meaning of the Act. The application of petitioner was registered as miscellaneous case No. 1 of 1971. Opposite Party No. 1 raised objection to the maintainability of the proceeding. By order dated 30th of June, 1973, the learned District Judge came to hold that he was not the Insurance Court and, therefore, had not jurisdiction to entertain the proceeding. The reason advanced by the learned District Judge was that Rule 9 of the Orissa Employees' Insurance Court Rules made by the State Government required consultation with the High Court and consent of the appointee before the appointment could take effect. As both these matters had not been done, the District Judge would have no jurisdiction because he would not be the Insurance Court.

(2.) This application has been filed by petitioner to declare the proviso to Rule 9 as bad in law and ultra vires and to declare that petitioner does not come within the purview of the statute and, therefore, the demands are unauthorised. The opposite parties have filed a counter affidavit disputing all the allegations both on facts and in law raised by petitioner.

(3.) Sections 74 and 75 of the Act are relevant for the purpose and may be extracted below: