( 1 ) THE petitioner in these cases is G. I. R. Company Pvt. Ltd. which, it is stated, came into existence in 1934. A certificate case under the Public Demands Recovery Act, being Case No. 65 of 1959-60 was started against the petitioner for a sum of Rs. 3069. 75 np. , representing the employers' special contribution payable under the provisions of the Employees State Insurance Act, 1948 (hereinafter referred to as the 'said Act' ). The petitioner filed objection and it is stated that ultimately this certificate was set aside and cancelled. Thereafter, the amount was split up and three different certificate proceedings were started, being Nos. 64, 65 and 66 of 1959-1960. It appears that the petitioner filed objections to these three certificates, but failed to appear at the hearing and the Certificate Officer disposed of the cases ex parte. Against that, there was an application for review which applications have been taken out in the writ jurisdiction.

( 2 ) BEFORE me, Mr. Maitra appearing on behalf of the petitioner has taken two objections. He does not dispute that the employer's special contribution arises under Chapter V-A of the said Act the charging Section being 63-A. He however argues that a certificate proceedings cannot be taken in respect of any special contribution stated to be due from the employer, without proceedings being taken first to adjudicate upon the same. He points out the provisions of Chapter VI of the said Act. This Chapter is headed "adjudication of disputes and claims". Under Section 74, an Employees' Insurance Court house been constituted, under sub-section (2) of Section 75, a list has been set out or claims that are to be decided by the Employees Insurance Court. Clause (a) of sub-section 92) relates to a claim for recovery of contribution from the principal employer. Clause (f) deals with any claim for the recovery of any benefit admissible under the said Act. Sub-section (3) of Section 75 lays down that no Civil Court shall have jurisdiction to decide, or to deal with, any question or dispute set out in sub-section (1) or (2) of Section 75 or to adjudicate on any liability which by or under the Act was to be decided by the Employees' Insurance Court. Mr. Maitra argues that the proper procedure was to determine the amount or liability of special contribution under Section 73a and if there is a dispute, to refer it to the Employees' Insurance Court. Plausible as this argument may seem, it is without any substance. Chapter V-A of the said Act was inserted as a special provision of a transitory nature, by Act 53 of 1951. The objects and reasons for introducing the legislative ejectment shows that it was introduced for a temporary purpose and that the Chapter"was to be considered as self-contained". It is permissible to look into the objects and reasons for discovering the background of a particular legislation and to find out the evil which it is intended to remedy. The statement of objects and reasons contains the following sentence :-"a few self-contained chapter is proposed providing for collection of employees' special contribution throughout the Union Chapter can be withdrawn from the operation by the Central Government after giving three months' notice. "

( 3 ) IF we look into the Chapter V-A, it will not only appear that it is headed with the expression 'transitory provisions", but that the chapter is intended to be a self-contained one. The general provisions in the said Act with regard to contribution by employers is to be found in Chapter 17, commencing with Section 38. While that liability is described as a mere "contribution", the liability under Section 73-A is called "special contribution". In Chapter V-A is laid down not only the nature of this special contribution to be aid by the employer, but it also contains the mode of recovery. In other words, the liability is created by the Chapter and the mode of enforcement of the liability is also contained therein. That mode is to be fou

Click Here to Read the rest of this document