BHAGALPUR ZILA KHADI GRAMODYOG SANGH Vs. REGIONAL DIRECTOR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The question framed for being answered by this Full Bench involves an authoritative interpretation of the provisions of Section 82 of the Employees' State Insurance Act, 1948 (hereinafter referred to as the '1948 Act') which makes a provision for an appeal to the High Court from an order of the Employees Insurance Court if it involves a substantial question of law. The doubt expressed while making the reference was as to whether a Letters Patent Appeal would be maintainable in terms of Clause 10 of the Letters Patent Constituting the High Court of Judicature at Patna as contained in Appendix E of the Rules of the High Court at Patna against the judgment of a learned Single Judge deciding an appeal under Section 82 (2) of the 1948 Act. The doubt arose on account of a stipulation of a bar to appeals as recited in the opening words of Sub-section (1) of Section 82 of the '1948 Act'. Since the same issue was raised and referred in Letters Patent Appeal No.111 of 1992, the present reference was also directed to come up for hearing before the Full Bench along with the reference made therein. From the records it appears that Letters Patent Appeal No. 111 of 1992 came to be dismissed in default on 13th of February, 2006.

(2.) This is how the reference being alive in this appeal has come up before us. The question referred is as follows:

(3.) Shri Saurendra Pandey appearing on behalf of the appellants has invited the attention of the Court to the decisions relating to the maintainability of Letters Patent Appeals keeping in view the provisions of the Civil Procedure Code, and to commence his arguments he has placed reliance on a 3 Judges decision in the case of Subal Paul versus Malina Paul and another reported in, 2003 10 SCC 361 where in an appeal arising out of Section 299 of the Indian Succession Act the Apex Court while interpreting Clause 15 of the Letters Patent of Calcutta High Court, as extended to the Gauhati High Court, came to the conclusion that a Letters Patent Appeal would be maintainable.