EMPLOYEES STATE INSURANCE CORPORATION Vs. COLLECTOR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) I. The genesis of dispute

(2.) This notice was contested before the ESIC Court by the respondent on a plea that the respondent did not know about the notification at all but the State Government which was the Appropriate Government issued a notification only on 13.05.1983 under Section 1 (5) of the ESI Act. The respondent did not contest the applicability of the Act or the contribution that was necessary to be paid but was only contending that the liability would arise only from the date when the State issued the notification and when ESI facilities were available for the workmen in order that the contribution could be made to secure the benefits. The relevant date cannot, therefore, be the order when Section 1(3) notification was issued by the Central Government and the payment demanded by the ESI on such basis was required to be quashed. The ESI Court accepted the contentions of the petitioner and set aside the demand made. It is against this order that the appeal has been filed.

(3.) There is no dispute of the liability for contribution and the scope of applicability of the Act to the establishment. The dispute is confined to the date of extension of the Act to the respondent and whether there was a failure on the part of the respondent to make a contribution in the manner contended by the ESI Corporation. This issue could be settled in the light of the rival contentions regarding the respective scope of operation of Section 1(3) that deals with Central Government's power to issue notification for extending the provisions of the Act and Section 1(5) that deals with the notification to be issued by the Appropriate Government for applicability of the Act to other establishments. The counsel have argued with reference to the relevant provisions and therefore, it would be fruitful to direct the attention to the relevant provisions.