DHALA TANNING COMPANY, GEMINI STUDIOS, MADRAS, VIJAYA PRODUCTIONS (P.) LIMITED, LESSEES OF VIJAYA VAUHINI STUDIO Vs. EMPLOYEES STATE INSURANCE CORPORATION THROUGH ITS INSPECTOR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THESE three Civil Miscellaneous Appeals arise out of three different petitions before the Employees' State Insurance Court, Madras. C.M. A. No. 12 of 1968 arises out of E.I.O.P. No. 36 of 1965 in which the Employees' State Insurance Corporation (hereinafter mentioned as the Corporation) claimed employees' contribution to the extent of RS. 3,593 for the period 1st April, 1961 to 27th March, 1965 against Messrs. Dhala Tanning Company, a company which was engaged in running a tannery. C.M.A. No. 191 of 1968 arises out of E.I.O.P. No. 6 of 1965 in which the Corporation claimed a total sum of Rs. 59,145 against Messrs. Gemini Studios by its proprietor, S.S. Vasan, as employees' contribution for the period 20th November, 1955 to 31st December, 1964. C.M.A. No. 192 of 1968 arises out of E.I.O.P. No. 35 of 1965 filed by the Corporation claiming a sum of Rs. 58,84.2 towards employees' contribution for the period 20th November, 1955 to 31st August, 1963 against Messrs. Vijaya Productions (Private) Limited, lessees of Vijaya Vauhini Studios. Gemini Studios, the respondent in E.I.O.P. No. 6 of 1965, and Messrs. Vijaya Productions (Private) Limited, the respondent in E.I.O.P. No. 35 of 1965, are both concerned in producing motion pictures.

(2.) ALL the three petitions of the Corporation were under Section 75(2) of the Employees' State Insurance Act, 1948 (hereinafter called the Act) and the respective respondent contested the claim on various grounds. However, the Employees' Insurance Court (hereinafter called the Insurance Court) negatived the contentions of the respondent and allowed the petitions filed by the Corporation. The respective respondent in the three petitions has filed the three Civil Miscellaneous Appeals. We are disposing of all the three appeals by a common judgment as the main question raised in all these appeals is one and the same, viz., question of limitation. As far as C.M.A. Nos. 191 and 192 of 1968 are concerned, all the questions raised are common to both. But it is not so in respect of C.M.A. No. 12 of 1968. However, as the main question, viz., the question of limitation, is common to all these appeals, it would be convenient to dispose of them by a common judgment.

(3.) UNDER Section 96 of the Act, the State Government has been empowered to make rules in regard to matters enumerated under that section and such rules should be made after consultation with the Corporation. The State Government has, in fact, made the Madras State Insurance (Court) Rules, 1951 by virtue of the powers conferred on it by Section 96 of the Act. Rule 17 of these rules as it originally stood provided that every application to the Insurance Court shall be brought within 12 months from the date on which the cause of action arose or, as the case may be, the claim became due. The rule also had a proviso stating that the Court may entertain an application after the abovesaid period of 12 months if it was satisfied that the applicant had sufficient reason for not making the application within the said period. In Messrs. Solar Works v. Employees' State Insurance Corporation, Madras, (1964) 2 M.L.J. 223. a Division Bench of this Court held that the abovesaid rule (Rule 17 of he Madras State Insurance (Court) Rules, 1951) is ultra vires of the rule -making power of the State, conferred upon it by Section 96(1) of the Act. The State Government of Maharashtra had also made a similar rule as the abovesaid Rule 17 and that was struck down as ultra vires by the Bombay High Court in Employees' State Insurance Corporation v. Bharat Barrel and Drum Manufacturing Company : (1967) ILLJ 625 Bom . The said decision of the Bombay High Court has been confirmed by the Supreme Court in Bharat Barrel and Drum Manufacturing Company Private Limited v. Employees' State Insurance Corporation, (1672) 1 S.C.R. 867 : : (1971) IILLJ 647 SC . It is after the Courts held that the State Government had no authority to make a rule prescribing the period of limitation the amendment of 1966 introducing the new provision, Section 77(1 -A), was passed. Therefore, the indisputable position is that as far as these appeals are concerned, there was no period of limitation prescribed under the Act.