MESSRS STANDARD LITERATURE COMPANY PRIVATE LIMITED Vs. EMPLOYEES STATE INSURANCE CORPORATION LIMITED CHENNAI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE Order of the Court was as follows : Aggrieved by the recovery proceedings of the first respondent dated 30-4-1998, the petitioner-company has filed the above writ petitions. THE case of the petitioner-company is briefly stated hereunder :- It is stated that the petitioner-Standard Literature Company (P) Limited was founded in the year 1924 at Calcutta. THE company is engaged in the business of Distributing and Marketing education and reference books. THE company has headquarters at Calcutta and branches all over the country including Chennai. Suddenly, by a notice dated 9-1-1990, the first respondent required the petitioner to show cause, why the Employees' State Insurance contribution should not be demanded from the petitioner-company. THE petitioner by this letter dated 3-3-90, requested the first respondent to furnish the inspection report. It is contended that the company has employed less than 20 persons and hence the Employees' State Insurance Act is not applicable to the petitioner-company. However, the first respondent passed an order under S. 45-A of the said Act dated 25-10-1991 determining that the Employees' State Insurance Act applies and ordered for contribution totally Rs. 1, 60, 670-30 for the period from 1-3-1983 to 30-11-89 and contribution of Rs. 2, 772/-, for the period from 1-1-1983 to 28-2-1983. Aggrieved by the said order demanding contribution, the petitioner filed a petition under S. 75 of the Employees' State Insurance Act before the Insurance Court/I Additional Judge, City Civil Court, Chennai to set aside the above proceedings. Subsequently, by an order dated 19-11-1992, the petitions were dismissed, upholding the order passed under S. 45-A of the said Act.

(2.) THE petitioner has not agitated the matter further as the Employees' State Insurance Act has no application to the petitioner. For several years nothing happen, but suddenly the first respondent has initiated recovery proceedings under S. 45-C to 45-I of the said Act. THE recovery proceedings are time batted under S. 77 of the said Act, hence liable to be quashed and directions be issued to the respondent not to initiate recovery proceedings.THE respondents have filed separate but identical counter-affidavit disputing various averments made by the petitioner. It is stated that petitioner-company was given adequate opportunity at all the stages. Admittedly the petitions filed by the petitioner-company before E.S.I. Court at Chennai had been dismissed even on 19-11-92. It is further stated that when the E.S.I. Court had found that the contribution determined by the E.S.I. Corporation was payable, it is not understandable as to how the petitioner thought that the E.S.I. Act has no application to the petitioner and that no appeal had been filed on that ground. THEre is no limitation prescribed under the Act and S. 77 is not applicable in these cases. THE recovery proceedings are neither time-barred nor unconstitutional, nor illegal, nor arbitrary, nor violative of either principles of natural justice or the provisions of the E.S.I. Act, 1948. THE entire S. 77 deals with only the commencement of proceedings in the E.S.I. Court and not for passing any order under S. 45-A or recovery of dues thereon. Having exhausted the effective alternative remedy under S. 75 of the said Act, the present writ proceedings are nothing but abuse of process of court and both the writ petitions are liable to be dismissed.

(3.) COMMENCEMENT of proceedings. - (1) The proceeding before an Employees' Insurance Court shall be commenced by application. (1A) Every such application shall be made within a period of three years from the date on which the cause of action arose.