DEPUTY REGIONAL DIRECTOR Vs. MAHALAXMI PROCESS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The appellants have preferred this appeal under Section 82 of the Employees' State Insurance Act, 1948 (for short, 'the Act of 1948') against the judgment and order dated 14th of March, 2007, passed by the learned Employees State Insurance Court, Pali (for short, 'the learned ESI Court'), whereby the learned ESI Court has quashed and set aside the order dated 2nd June, 2004 demanding amount of contribution, interest and damages from the respondent-employer. The learned Court below has also granted liberty to the appellants to examine the relevant record of the respondent-establishment, namely, payment of wages register and other documents for making assessment of contribution, interest and damages w.e.f., May, 1996 to April 1999.

(2.) Assailing the impugned verdict, learned counsel for the appellants, Mr. R.K. Soni, has strenuously argued that finding of the learned Court below regarding contribution, interest and damages anterior to May, 1996 is per-se erroneous because the learned Court below has recorded a definite finding that demand of the same is barred by limitation without properly construing the relevant provisions in this behalf. Submission of the learned counsel for the appellants is that in relation to said demand, no period of limitation is prescribed, and therefore, this finding of the learned Court below is perverse and contrary to the established principles of law. For canvassing this proposition, learned counsel for the appellants has placed reliance on E.S.I.C. V/s. C.C. Santhakumar, 2007 1 SCC 584, wherein the Apex Court, while considering the provision of limitation under Section 77(1A)(b) of the Act of 1948 vis-a-vis Section 45A & 45B (Chapter IV) has observed in para 26 to 31 as under :-

(3.) Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent, while defending the impugned order passed by the learned ESI Court has urged that demand for payment of employer's contribution, interest and damages from March 1993 to April 1996 was barred by limitation, and therefore, the learned ESI Court has rightly concluded that the said amount is not recoverable. As regards the period commencing from March 1993 to April 1996, learned counsel for the respondent has also argued that the relevant record including the payment for wages register for the aforesaid period i.e., anterior to 1996 may not be available with the respondent-establishment, and therefore, taking into account the passage of time, matter relating to demand of contribution, interest and damages for the interregnum period may not be reopened. Mr. Bohra, learned counsel for the respondent would urge that there is no substantial question of law involved in this appeal warranting interference by this Court. Learned counsel for the respondent submits that the learned Court below has simply remanded the matter back to the appellants for taking a decision afresh after examining the relevant record i.e., from May 1996 to April 1999 of the establishment, and therefore, this part of the order is not liable to be interfered with.