The main legal point established is that an appeal under Section 82 of the Act of 1948 would not lie against an order that does not finally decide the rights and liabilities of the parties.

ORDER

1. The present writ petition has been filed against the order dated 24.05.2019 passed by the Employees State Insurance Court, Pali, whereby an application for temporary injunction preferred by the petitioner-school has been rejected.

2. Two preliminary objections have been raised by learned counsel for the respondents:

(i) First, that the present writ petition is not maintainable in terms of Section 82 of the Employees’ State Insurance Act, 1948 (hereinafter referred to as ’the Act of 1948’). In support of his argument, learned counsel relied upon a judgment of Hon’ble Allahabad High Court in the case of Modi Steel Unit-A Vs. Employees’ State Insurance Court (S.D.M.), Ghaziabad and Ors. (F.A.F.O. Nos.827 and 828 of 1980) decided on 13.03.1984.

(ii) Second, that the petitioner-school did not deposit 50% of the recovery amount in compliance of Section 75(2B) of the Act of 1948, therefore, the petitioner itself could not have been heard by the court.

3. Replying to the said objections, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners submitted that as held by Bombay High Court in the case of Abdul Shakur Umar Sahigara and Co. Vs. Regional Director, Employees State Insurance Corporation reported in (2004) 101 FLR 1126 and in the matter of Employees State Insurance Corporation Vs. Force Motors Ltd. reported in (2008) 118 FLR 526, an appeal against an interlocutory order or procedural order which does not finally decide the rights or liabilities of the parties would not lie in terms of Section 82 of the Act of 1948 and therefore, the present writ petition is maintainable before this Court.

4. So far as the second objection is concerned, learned counsel for the petitioners fairly submitted that the petitioner-school is bound and is willing to deposit 50% of the demanded amount before the court below in terms of Section 75(2B) of the Act of 1948.

5. So far as the question of maintainability of the present writ petition is concerned, in Abdul Shakur Umar Sahigara’s case (supra), while interpreting the word ’Order’, the Hon’ble Bombay High Court held as under :

"With the understanding of the above distinction if one puts a question as to against which order an appeal lies u/s 82, the logical answer would be that it lies against such order which is enforceable as if it is a decree passed in a suit by a Civil Court. Therefore, an appeal u/s 82 of the Act shall lie against an order which has the characteristics of a decree. Such orders could be only those orders passed u/s 75 of the Act which have flavour of or trappings of determination or adjudication of the rights and obligations of the parties. In my view, only such orders can be said to be appealable u/s 82 of the Act and no other.’"

6. In Force Motors Ltd.’s case (supra), it has been held as under :

"An appeal u/s 82 will not lie against a procedural order or an interlocutory order which does not finally decide the rights or liabilities of the parties."

Section 82 of the Act of 1948 reads as under :

’82. Appeal

(1) Save as expressly provided in this section, no appeal shall lie from an order of an Employees’ Insurance Court.

(2) An appeal shall lie to the High Court from an order of an Employees’ Insurance Court if it involves substantial question of law.

(3) The period of limitation for an appeal under this section shall be sixty days.

(4) The provisions of sections 5 and 12 of the 118[Limitation Act, 1963] shall apply to appeals under this section."

7. A bare perusal of above provision makes it clear that no appeal would lie against an order of the Employees State Insurance Court except those expressly provided for. The only exception to the said provision is a matter which involves substantial question of law. Evidently, the present impugned order is an order whereby the interim order has been refused to be granted by the court. The same does not finally decide the rights and liabilities of the parties. Even the question as to whether the provisions of the Act of 1948 itself would apply to the