IMPORTANT POINT
The Employees State Insurance Act mandates a strict three-year limitation period for filing disputes, with no provision for condonation of delay, emphasizing the importance of adhering to statutory time limits in legal proceedings.

JUDGMENT :

SANJAY KUMAR DWIVEDI, J.

Heard learned counsel appearing for the appellant and learned counsel appearing for the respondents.

2. This appeal is preferred by the appellant being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the judgment and order dated 25.06.2005 passed by learned Presiding Officer, Labour Court-cum-ESI Court, Ranchi in ESI Case No.11 of 2002 by which the learned Court has dismissed the petition filed under Section 75 of the Employees State Insurance Act (hereinafter referred to as Act of 1948) on the ground that it is barred by limitation.

3. Mr. Indrajit Sinha, learned counsel appearing for the appellant submits that the appellant received a notice in a prescribed Form C11 dated 17.12.1992, whereby and whereunder it has been intimated that on the basis of an inspection made by the Inspector on 01.09.1992, the establishment falls within the purview of factory with effect from 01.03.1991 and therefore, the appellant is directed to take steps for registration of the said establishment under the provisions of Employees State Insurance Act, 1948. He submits that the appellant in response to notice aforesaid vide its letter dated 28.01.1993 saying that no such inspection was ever made on 01.09.1992 by any inspector. Thereafter, the appellant filed a petition for extending the date and time fixed for filing the show cause and to produce records that thereafter ESI vide letter dated 10.03.1995 fixed a date for personal hearing on 03.05.1995. He submits that vide order dated 08.08.1995, the appellant was called upon to pay the determined amount under the ESI for the period from 01.03.1991 to 31.12.1994. By way of referring Annexure-3A, he submits that by letter dated 10.03.1995 the appellant was intimated that pursuant to letter dated 21/22.02.1995, the appellant was again called for hearing by letter dated 03.05.1995. The appellant herein again filed a petition intimating that the establishment is not coming within the definition of the ESI Act. He submits that by letter dated 12.03.1996, the ESI has also given an opportunity to disclose the stand of the appellant. He submits that this letter was dated 12.03.1996, however it was discussed later on and it was received by the appellant on 10.05.1996. He submits that in view of Annexure 7 dated 04.04.1996, the Deputy Regional Director has intimated the recovery officer for recovering of the said amount from the appellant. The appellant herein has again filed a petition on 14.05.1996 to hear the appellant for determination of the dispute by way of referring the Annexure-9 dated 20.02.1998. He submits that this proceeding was itself stayed. Again, the appellant was called upon to produce all the records at Patna by Annexure-10 dated 15.04.1998, the appellant intimated the ESI that appellant is ready to produce all the document at Ranchi and not in Headquarter. He submits that by letter dated 31.05.2000 contained in Annexure-11, the earlier stay order was stated to be vacated, if the appellant fails to appear on 29.06.2000. He submits that by letter dated 26.06.2000, the appellant herein further intimated the ESI that raising of the demand is bad in law and the appellant is not able to and the documents have already been produced before the ESI and again intervention was demanded by the appellant vide letter dated 21.12.2000 contained in Annexure-13. The recovery officer vide Annexure-14 called upon the appellant to appear for satisfying the order passed under Section 25A of the Act of 1948. In this background, he submits that the learned labour Court has erred in deciding the preliminary objection itself at the first point without considering the facts that there are mixed question of fact and law for deciding the issue of limitation, however learned Court has wrongly decided that only law points is there, there is no facts for deciding the same and he submits that order is fit to be set aside. He further submits in the second limb of the argument that Section 14 of the Limita