Full Judgment Text
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 2
PETITIONER:
EMPLOYEES STATE INSURANCE CORPORATION
Vs.
RESPONDENT:
DWARKA NATH BHARGWA
DATE OF JUDGMENT: 21/08/1997
BENCH:
S. B. MAJMUDAR, S. SAGHIR. AHMAD
ACT:
HEADNOTE:
JUDGMENT:
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
J U D G M E N T
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
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 2
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.