M/S GOODYEAR INDIA LTD. versus THE REGIONAL DIRECTOR, EMPLOYEES STATE INSURANCE CORPN. AND ORS.

Citation: [1996] SUPP. 9 S.C.R. 254 · Decided: 27-11-1996 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: K. RAMASWAMY, G.T. NANAVATI · Disposal: Dismissed

Judgment (excerpt)

A 
B 
c 
MIS GOODYEAR INDIA LTD. 
v. 
THE REGIONAL DIRECTOR, EMPLOYEES' STATE 
INSURANCE CORPN. AND ORS. 
NOVEMBER 27, 1996 
(K. RAMASWAMY AND G.T. NANAVATI, JJ.) 
Employees State bmira11ce Act, 1948: Sections 45-B, 77( I-A) Explana· 
tion (CJ and 77-A. 
Employees State l11surance (Ge11eral) Regulation, 1950: Regulation 26. 
Employees State lnsura11ce Fu11d-Demand for contribution-Limita· 
tio11 period fo,-Dema11d made on 1st December, 1982 from appellant Com-
pa11y for co11tributio11 towards Fu11d-Demand pel'tai11ing to period from 
D 28.1.68 to 30.10. 79 i11 respect of establishmellt at Ba11galore and from 
28.1.1968 to 31.8.1979 for establishment at Indore-Appellant's contention 
that demands are bamd by limitation-Held, The cause of action for con-
tributio11 would arise 011/y after the decision by the Insurance Court in the 
proceedi11gs it laid under Sectio11 75 of the Act-The Act was subsequently 
aniended by Section 30 of the Amendment Act 28 of 1989 which came into 
E effect from October 20, 1989-lt provides that application can be made within 
three years from the date of arising of the cause of action-This amendment 
has no application to the proceedings in this case since the cause of action 
had arisen prior to the amendment-Under these circumstances, there is no 
bar of limitation for the payment of the contribution as contended. 
F 
G 
Kirloskar Brothers Ltd. v. Employees State Insurance Corporation, 
(1966] 2 sec 682, referred to. 
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 1152 of 
1985. 
From the Judgment and Order dated 30.1.85 of the Punjab & 
Haryana High Court in F.A. O.No. 21 of 1985. 
Krishan Mahajan, Amit Dhingra and P.H. Parekh for the Appellants. 
H 
T.C. Sharma for Mrs. Anil Katiyar for the Respondents. 
254 
GOODYEAR INDIA LTD. v. REGNL. DIRECTQR, E.S.I. CORPN. 
255 
The following Order of the Court was delivered : 
A 
This appeal by special leave arises from the judgment of the Punjab 
and Haryana High Court, made on January 30, 1985 in FAO No. 21/85 and 
C.M. No. 192-CII. 
The appellant-establishment was covered under the provisions of the B 
Employees' State Insurance Act, 1943 (for short, the 'Act'). On December 
1, 1982, a demand was made of the appellant to contribute the amount 
under the Act to the fund of the Corporation for the period from 28.1.1968 
to 31.10.1979 for the establishment at Bangalore and from 28.1.1968 to 
31.8.1979 for the establishment at Indore. Initially, a contention had been C 
raised by the appeliant that these establishments are not covered under the 
Act and there is no relationsb,ip of employer and employee between• the 
workmen and the appellant. This controversy was covered by a three Judge 
Bench decision of this Court in Kir/oskar Brothers Ltd. v. Employees State 
l11sura11ce Corporation (1966] 2 SCC 682; wherein this Court had held that 
the appellant i8 covered by the provisions of the Act and is liable to D 
contribute the amount to the Fund of the Corporation to ensure insurance 
coverage of the employees working under the appellant. In this appeal, the 
controversy is as to the limitation and the period from which they are liable 
to make the contribution. · 
The appellants placing reliance on Section 77-A of the Act read with E 
Regulation 26 of the Employees' State Insurance (General) Regulation 
1950, as was in operation at the relevant time, contended that the demands 
are barred by limitation and, therefore, the appellants are not liable to 
make any contribution for the period in question. With a view to appreciate 
the contention, it is necessary to look to the provisions of the Act. 
F 
Section 45-B provides for the procedure for recovery of contributions 
which says that any contribution payable under this Act may be recovered 
as an arrears of land revenue. Section 75(2) provides that : 
"the claim shall be decided by the Employees' Insurance Court G 
(subject to the provisions of sub-Section 2-A), namely: 
"(a) claim for the recovery of contributions froni the principal 
employer; 
(b) claim by a principal employer to recover contributions from H 
A 
B 
c 
256 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1996] SUPP. 9 S.C.R. 
any immediate employer; 
( c) omitted 
( d) claim against a principal employer under Section 68; 
( e) claim under Section 70 for the recovery of the value of amount 
of the benefits received by a person when he is not lawfully entitled 
thereto; and 
(t) any claim for the recovery of any benefit admissible under ti\is 
Act.
11 

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.