Absence of express limitation period requires ESI Act Section 85-B penalty orders to be passed within reasonable time.

The Respondent (Bombay Gymkhana) initially disputed the applicability of the Employees' State Insurance Act, 1948 (ESI Act), but eventually accepted it after its appeals were dismissed in 1996.

In September 2000, the Respondent paid a contribution amount of ₹14.92 lakhs for the period 1972–1989.

In 2011, the Appellant demanded interest, which was litigated separately.

On 16 April 2014—fourteen years after the contribution was paid—the Appellant issued a show-cause notice under Section 85-B of the ESI Act for damages.

An order imposing damages of ₹16.26 lakhs was passed on 30 June 2014.

The ESI Court set aside this order on 16 October 2018, ruling it was barred by the limitation period provided in the proviso to Section 77(1A)(b).

The Corporation appealed this decision.

The Court applied the principle that where a statute does not prescribe a limitation period for performing an act or passing an order, such power must be exercised within a "reasonable period".

It relied on ESI Corporation v. C.C. Santhakumar, which affirmed this concept within the ESI Act framework.

The Court looked to Section 45-A (second proviso) of the ESI Act, which limits contribution orders to a five-year look-back period.

Regulation 32 of the ESI (General) Regulations, 1950, requires employers to preserve records for five years.

Section 77(1A) and its proviso prevents claims made more than five years after the period to which the claim relates.

The Court proceeded on the premise that no express limitation exists for Section 85-B but focused on the "reasonable period" doctrine.

By synthesizing various provisions of the ESI Act (Sections 45-A, 77, and Regulation 32), the Court deduced that the legislature frequently envisages a five-year window for statutory actions.

The Court held that since the contribution was paid in September 2000, the "reasonable period" to levy damages expired in September 2005.

The Appellant's 14-year delay (until 2014) was deemed unreasonable and unjustified.

The Court rejected the argument that pending interest litigation stayed the limitation for damages, noting that damages are based on contribution defaults, not interest.

It further held that even under social welfare legislation, penal powers must be exercised swiftly to maintain their deterrent effect and ensure legal certainty.

The Court held that a five-year period constitutes a reasonable limit for claiming damages under Section 85-B.

The appeal was dismissed, and the order imposing damages was quashed due to the unexplained 14-year delay.