Employees
State Insurance Corporation Vs. Dwarka Nath Bhargwa [1997] INSC 680 (21 August
1997)
S. B.
MAJMUDAR, S. SAGHIR. AHMAD
ACT:
HEADNOTE:
Present:
Hon`ble
Mr. Justice S.B. Majmudar Hon`ble Mr. Justice S. Saghir Ahmad Arvind Kr.
Sharma, Ms. Anubha Jain, Advs. for S.N. Terdol, Advs for the appellant
The
following Judgment of the Court was delivered:
MAJMUDAR,
J.
The
Employees State Insurance Corporation has brought in challenge the order passed
by Allahabad High Court disposing of the first appeal from order No.362 of
1972. By the impugned judgment , the High Court has taken the view that
provisions of Section 45B of the Employees State Insurance Act, 1948
(hereinafter referred to as "the Act") enabling recovery of
contribution payable under the Act as arrears of land revenue cannot be pressed
into service by the appellant-Corporation in the pressed into service by the
appellant-Corporation in the present case. Reason given by the High court for
the said conclusion is to the effect that the effect that the recoveries
pertain to the period prior to the date on which Section 45B was inserted in
the statute book. The said section was brought into force on 28.1.1968, while
the amount sought to be recovered became payable on 27.1.1967 and 24.1.1968. It
is of course true that these amounts were to be paid by the respondent employer
on these relevant dates, but these contribution were not made by the respondent
in time. Therefore, they remained in arrears.
After
section 45B was brought on the statute book, notices were issued to the
respondent on 24.4.1970 and 9.9.1970 for effecting recoveries of these unpaid
amounts of contributions by resort to section 45B Question, therefore is as to
whether for the aforesaid contributions which remained unpaid resort to Section
45B could be effected on any day after the said section came on the statute
book? Now a mere look at the said section came on the statute book? Now a mere
at the said section shows that in is of procedural nature. It provides that any
contribution payable under these Act may be recovered as arrear of land
revenue', Consequently, on the date on which the recovery by way of arrears of
land revenue is to be effected, the contribution in question should have
remained unpaid.
It is
not in dispute and cannot be disputed that the contributions in question had
remained payable all throughout and were paid by the respondent. The day on
which recovery by way of land revenue was sought to be made, section had
already come into force. As it was a procedural provision, it could obviously
apply retrospectively to cover all contributions which had remained unpaid even
prior to the date on which the section come into force. In support of this
contention, learned counsel force. In support of this contention, learned
counsel for the appellant rightly invited our attention to a decision of the
Privy Council in Cloth and General Mills Co. Ltd vs. Income Tax Commissioner,
Delhi and Another reported in AIR 1927 PC 242 wherein it has been laid down
that 'while provisions of a statute dealing merely with matters of procedure
may properly, unless that construction be textually inadmissible, have
retrospective effect attributed to them, provisions which touch a right in
existence at the passing to the statute are not to be applied retrospectively
in the absence of express enactment or necessary intendment'.
As the
aforesaid provision is purely procedural in nature, It cannot. be gainsaid that
it could have retrospective effect. Consequently, the connection is well made
out and must be accepted. We, therefore, hold that Section 45B can be pressed
in service to effect recovery of unpaid contributions when the contributions
nave remained unpaid since prior to the coming into force of Section 45B and
have throughout also remained unpaid.
Consequently,
notices issued in the present case against the respondent could not be said to
be unauthorised or incompetent. The appeal is accordingly, allowed, The
judgment and order of the High Court as well as that of the Employees Insurance
Court, Allahabad are set aside. The respondent's application before the Employees Insurance Court is disposed of in aforesaid terms.
No costs.
Back