Section 45-A cannot raise ESI contribution demands where records were furnished and inspected; Section 75 proceedings are required.

The appellant-company introduced an “Efficiency Scheme” on 23 February 1987, under which payments were made to workers for improved performance and utilisation of men and machinery.

The Employees’ State Insurance Corporation demanded employer’s and employees’ ESI contributions on those payments for the period January 1986 to April 1987, initially quantified at Rs.1,83,783.15.

After the appellant responded to the demand and produced its records and returns, the Corporation passed an order dated 5 January 1989 under Section 45-A of the Employees’ State Insurance Act, 1948, raising a contribution demand of Rs.1,83,974.60.

The Employees’ Insurance Court, Faridabad, upheld the demand by decision dated 14 December 1994, leading to the present appeal.

The Court applied Section 45-A of the Employees’ State Insurance Act, 1948, which empowers the Corporation to determine contributions where an employer fails to submit returns, records or particulars, or where inspection is obstructed; it held that this provision could not properly be invoked in the present circumstances when the employer had furnished and made available its relevant records.

The Court further recognised that a disputed contribution liability, in such circumstances, was required to be determined through proceedings under Section 75 of the Act.

It also referred to Section 77(1-A), under which proceedings before the Employees’ Insurance Court are ordinarily required to be commenced within three years from the date on which the cause of action arose.

The evidence of the Corporation’s witness, M.L. Khurana, established that inspections of the appellant-company were regularly conducted and that the demands under the Efficiency Scheme were made on a monthly basis.

The Court therefore inferred that the appellant had produced the relevant returns and records relating to the Efficiency Scheme payments and that those records had been inspected by the Corporation.

Since the factual precondition for invoking Section 45-A—failure to furnish records or returns—was absent, the order dated 5 January 1989 was held to be without jurisdiction.

Any disputed claim for contributions was required to be pursued under Section 75 rather than through a determination under Section 45-A.

Although the Corporation sought liberty to initiate fresh Section 75 proceedings, the Court declined to grant it because the demand related to 1986–1987 and approximately forty years had elapsed; proceedings would also be subject to the limitation framework under Section 77(1-A).

The Employees’ Insurance Court’s decision dated 14 December 1994 was set aside, and the contribution demand dated 5 January 1989 raised under Section 45-A was quashed as illegal and without jurisdiction.

The Court declined to grant liberty to the Corporation to commence fresh proceedings under Section 75 at that belated stage.

Any amount deposited by the appellant pursuant to the impugned demand before the Corporation or the Employees’ Insurance Court was directed to be refunded within two months.