Skip to content


Employees State Insurance Corporation Through Regional Director Vs. National Printing Press and Ayodhya Prasad - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
SubjectLabour and Industrial;Insurance
CourtRajasthan High Court
Decided On
Case NumberS.B. Civil Reference No. 2 of 1969
Judge
Reported in1975(8)WLN737
AppellantEmployees State Insurance Corporation Through Regional Director
RespondentNational Printing Press and Ayodhya Prasad
Cases ReferredAnr. v. Employees State Insurance Corporation
Excerpt:
.....held by the supreme court in bharat barrel and drum manufacturing co. ltd. and anr. v. employees state insurance corporation 1971 fjr 339, rule 17 is invalid, and beyond the scope of the rule making authority of the state if rule 17 is held to be ultra vires, then the necessary corollary which follows is that rule 42 is also ultra vires of the rules mating authority of the state, in view of these circumstances narrated above, it must be held that rule 2 of the rajasthan state insurance court rules is invalid. - section 2(k), 2(1), 7 & 40 & juvenile justice (care and protection of children) rules, 2007, rule 12 & 98 & juvenile justice act, 1986, section 2(h): [altamas kabir & cyriac joseph, jj] determination as to juvenile - appellant was found to have completed the age of 16 years..........decree is not executable as it is barred by fame reliance was placed on rule 42 of the rajasthan state employees insurance court rules, 1959, where-by the period of one year has been laid down during which a decree could be executed. however, a rejoinder was submitted on behalf of the decree-bolder that rules 17(1) and 42 of the rajasthan state employees insurance court rules, 1959 were ultra vires. this decree was sent to the learned munsiff for execution. the learned munsiff before whom these objections were raised, referred the following question of law for adjudication:whether the state of rajasthan had framed rule 42(1) in the rajasthan employees insurance court rules, 1959 which is outside the strict terms of authority assigned to the sate under section 96(1)(b) of the esi act,.....
Judgment:

P.D. Kudal, J.

1. The Employee's State insurance Corporation applied before the Employees Insurance Court, Jaipur against the National Printing Press & its neither Ayodhya Prasad Sharma to enforce its claim and obtained a decree for Rs. 918/- & costs, on account of employees contribution which was due under the ESI Act. The decree was obtained on 29.4 1961. The execution of the decree was sought on 12-7-1962. An objection was raised by Ayodhya Prasad that the decree is not executable as it is barred by fame Reliance was placed on Rule 42 of the Rajasthan State Employees Insurance Court Rules, 1959, where-by the period of one year has been laid down during which a decree could be executed. However, a rejoinder was submitted on behalf of the decree-bolder that Rules 17(1) and 42 of the Rajasthan State Employees Insurance Court Rules, 1959 were ultra vires. This decree was sent to the learned Munsiff for execution. The learned Munsiff before whom these objections were raised, referred the following question of law for adjudication:

Whether the State of Rajasthan had framed Rule 42(1) in the Rajasthan Employees Insurance Court Rules, 1959 which is outside the strict terms of authority assigned to the Sate Under Section 96(1)(b) of the ESI Act, 1948 and as such it is excessive delegated legislation and mutt need be declared to be invalid arid of questionable vires.

2. The learned Counsel arguing on behalf of the Employees State Insurance Corporation contended that Rule 17 of the Bombay Employee' Insurance Rule has been declared to be ultra vires in the case of Bharat Barrel & Drum . and Anr. v. Employees State Insurance Corporation 1971 FJR 339, and such, following the same analogy Rule 42 of the Rajasthan Employees Insurance Rules, 1969 is also invalid.

3. While making the reference, the learned Munsiff relied on United India Timber Works v. ESI Corporation , ESI Corporation v. M.P. Govt. : (1963)IILLJ230MP , ESI Corporation v B.B. & Drum Mfg Co. : (1967)ILLJ625Bom , Solar Works v. Employees SI Corporation : (1963)IILLJ597Mad and A.K. Bros v. ESI Corporation : (1965)ILLJ1All .

4. The learned Counsel for Insurance Corporation also drew the attention of this Court to a decision by the learned Division Bash of this Court in the case of Employees State Insurance Corporation v. Executive Engineer. PWD (B & R) Workshop, Jaipur decided on 10th November 1971 : 1972 RLW 570. Attention was also drawn to the cases of Employees State Insurance Corporation. Jaipur v. Executive Engineer PWD, decided on 8th March, 1972 : 1972 RLW 155 and Regional Director ESI Corporation v. Assistant Eng M.C. 1972 RLW 258 decided on 14th March, 1972 In the latter case, it was held that Rule 17 of the Employees Insurance Court Rules was ultra vires and invalid. As matter of the fact, the controversy about the validity of Rule 17 on the Bombay Employees State Insurance Court Rules, 1959 was set at rest by the decision of the Supreme Court in Bharst Barrel & Drum . and Anr. v. Employees State Insurance Corporation 1971 FJR 339, wherein it was held that Section 96(1)(b) of the Employees State Insurance Article, 1948, which enables the State Government to make rules not inconsistent with the Act in regard to the procedure to be followed in proceedings before Employees Insurance Courts, deals with the procedure to be followed in relation IO proceedings in the Court after it has seized of the matter. The State Government does not have power to make a rule under this Section laying down the period of limitation for applications to the Court Rule 17 of the Bombay Employees Insurance Court Rules, which lays down a limitation of twelve months within which an application to the Court should be made, it there for, ultra vires of the powers of the State Government and invalid Moreover, such a rule will have the effect of extinguishing the rights of parties if a claim is not made within the prescribed period and the legislature does not part with the power to prescribe limitation which it retains to itself unless it in ends to do so in clear and unambiguous terms or by necessary intendment.

5. The Employees Insurance Court Rules made by the State of Bombay and Rajasthan are parameter therefore, the decision of the Supreme Court on Rule 17 of the Bombay Employees Insurance Court Rules shall apply with full force to the rules framed by the State of Rajasthan.

6. The Rajasthan Employees Insurance Court Rules, 1959 in Part II deals with the procedure and execution of orders Rules 17 and 42 both fall in Part II of these Rules As has been held by the Supreme Court in Bbarat Barrel & Drum . Anr. v. Employees State Insurance Corporation 1971 FJR 339, Rule 17 is invalid, and beyond the scope of the rule making authority of the State. It Rule 17 is held to be ultra vires then the necessary corollary which follows is that Rule 42 is also ultra vires of the Rule making authority of the State. In view of these circumstances narrated above, it must be held that Rule 42 of the Rajasthan State Insurance Court Rules is invalid.

7. The reference made by the learned Munsiff is answered accordingly. The case be sent back to him for proceeding further in the matter according to law.


Save Judgments// Add Notes // Store Search Result sets // Organizer Client Files //