INDIRAKUITY Vs. EMPLOYEES STATE INSURANCE CORPORATION

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE sole question that falls for decision in this second appeal is whether the civil court's jurisdiction to interfere with the decision of the Employees' insurance Court is barred by the provision contained in S. 75 (3) of the Employees' State Insurance Act, Act XXXIV of 1948, shortly stated the Act, read with S. 9 of the Code of Civil Procedure.

(2.) ON an application under S. 75 (2) of the Act. dated 30 91966, a copy of which is Ext. A-6, filed by the Employees' State Insurance corporation of India (the respondent-defendant), hereinafter referred to as the corporation, the Employees' Insurance Court, Alleppey, in Insurance Case No. 113 of 1966 passed judgment dated 23 5 1967, a copy of which is Ext. A-4, where under the opposite parties therein were ordered to pay to the Corporation a sum of Rs. 2005. 98 with interest and costs. In Ext A-6 application it has been stated interalia that Swaraj Printing Works, Kottayam, was a factory as defined in S. 2 (12) of the Act; being the occupier and the manager respectively of the said factory, one Sri M. K. Kunjukutty Asan and one Sri P. K. Sivaraman Nair were liable to pay to the Corporation the employee's contribution as required under S. 40 (1) of the Act for the relevant period; opposite party Nos. 1 to 7 were the legal heirs of the said Kunjukutty Asan, and opposite party No. 8 was the said Sri P. K. Sivaraman Nair; calculated on an ad hoc basis a sum of Rs. 2005 98 approximately was due as employee's contribution from the opposite parties.

(3.) WE may, before proceeding further, notice some of the relevant provisions of the Act as it stood prior to its amendment by the 1966 act (parties being at agreement that the amended provisions were not applicable during the material time ). Sub-section (1) of S. 40 of the Act provides that the principal employer shall pay in respect of every employee, whether directly employed by him or by or through an immediate employer, both the employer's contribution and the employee's contribution. 'principal employer' in terms of s. 2 (17) means the owner or occupier of a factory, and includes the legal representatives of a deceased owner or occupier, and any person named as the manager of a factory under the Factories Act, 1948 (It is not necessary to look into the definition of the word 'factory' in the Factories Act, as no contention was advanced before me that Swaraj Printing Works was not a factory during the material time ). By virtue of the provisions contained in sub-section (1) or S. 73 of the Act, in terms of clause (d) thereof, if any question or dispute arises as to the person who is or was the principal employer in respect of any employee, such question or dispute shall be decided by the Employees' insurance Court in accordance with the provisions of the Act. The Employees' insurance Court under sub-section (2) of S. 75, in terms of clause (a) thereof, is empowered to decide claims for the recovery of the contribution from the principal employer. Sub-s. (3) of the said section with which we are more directly concerned in this second appeal reads as follows: "no Civil Court shall have jurisdiction to decide or deal with any question or dispute as aforesaid or to adjudicate on any liability which by or under this Act is to be decided by the Employees' insurance Court. " S. 9 of the Code of Civil Procedure reads as follows: "the courts shall (subject to the provisions herein contained) have jurisdiction to try all suits of a civil nature excepting suits of which their cognizance is either expressly or impliedly barred. Explanation I A suit in which the right to property or to an office is contested is a suit of a civil nature, notwithstanding that such right may depend entirely on the decision of questions as to religious rites or ceremonies. Explanation II For the purpose of this section, it is immaterial whether or not any fees are attached to the office referred to in explanation I or whether or not such office is attached to a particular place. "