THE REGIONAL DIRECTOR, GOVERNMENT OF INDIA Vs. SHRI N.G. IYER AND ORS.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The appellant, Regional Director, Employees' State Insurance Corporation, Bihar Region, made an application under Sec. 75(2) of the Employees' State Insurance Act, 1948 (hereinafter to be referred to as 'the Act') on the 29th August, 1966, for recovery from the respondents of employees' contribution for the period from 15.12.57 to 31.12.64 on account of overtime wages paid by the employer. The respondents resisted the claim on the ground that the claim in respect of any period before three years of the date of application was time barred. The court below has accepted the contention of the respondents and held that the appellant was entitled to claim employees' contribution from 30.8.63 only and not for the period before that date. Being aggrieved by that order, the appellant has preferred this appeal. In support of its order that the claim for employees' contribution for the period before 30.8.63 was barred by limitation the court below has relied on Article 137 of the Schedule to the Limitation Act, 1963 and Sec. 77(1A) of the Act. Learned counsel for the respondents had to concede that the claim could not be held to be barred either by Article 137 of the Schedule to the Limitation Act or Sec. 77(1A) of the Act. In (1) Town Municipal Council, Athani V. Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Hubli ( : A.I.R. 1969 SC 1335) it has been observed that it was not possible to hold that the intention of the legislature was to drastically alter the scope of Article 137 (corresponding Article in the old Act being Article 181) so as to include within it all the applications irrespective of the fact whether they had any reference of the Code of Civil Procedure. It has further been observed in that case that this Article would not apply the applications made to Industrial Tribunal or Labour Court which are mere Quasi -Judicial Tribunals and not Courts in the real sense of the term. In (2) Letters Patent Appeal No. 31 of 1956 (Bihar State Electricity Board V. Monghyr Electric Supply Co. Judgment dated 21st May, 1971) myself, B.D. Singh, J. concurring, held that Article 137 of the new Limitation Act would apply only to applications under the Code of Civil Procedure and not even to applications under the Indian Arbitration Act filed before a regular court. The reasons for the said view have been given in detail in that judgment and it is not necessary to repeat them here. It is obvious, therefore, that the court below has erred in holding that the claim of the appellant was partly barred by Article 137 of the new Limitation Act.

(2.) By referring to Sec. 77(1A) of the Act in support of its finding that the claim of the appellant was partly barred, the court below has shown that it has applied itself to the matter superficially. Sub -section (1A) of Sec. 77 of the Act was not there on the date the application was made by the appellant. It was inserted by Act 44 of 1966, and came into force with effect from 28th of January, 1968. An application filed on 29th August, 1956, therefore, could not be held to be barred by Sub -section (1A) of Sec. 77. The court below ought to have applied itself more carefully while considering the contention of the respondents that the claim of the appellant was barred by Sub -section (1A) of Sec. 77 of the Act.

(3.) Mr. Krishna Prakash Sinha, learned counsel for the respondents, however, attempted to support the order of the court below with reference to Rule 17 of the Bihar Employees' Insurance Courts Rules, 1952. This rule runs as follows: