Ramaswami, J.- These three Civil Miscellaneous Appeals arise out of three different petitions before the Employees’ State Insurance Court, Madras. C.M. A. No. 12 of 1968 arises out of E.I.O.P. No. 36 of 1965 in which the Employees’ State Insurance Corporation (hereinafter mentioned as the Corporation) claimed employees’ contribution to the extent of Rs. 3,593 for the period 1st April, 1961 to 27th March, 1965 against Messrs. Dhala Tanning Company, a company which was engaged in running a tannery. C.M.A. No. 191 of 1968 arises out of E.I.O.P. No. 6 of 1965 in which the Corporation claimed a total sum of Rs. 59,145 against Messrs. Gemini Studios by its proprietor, S. S. Vasan, as employees’ contribution for the period 20th November, 1955 to 31st December, 1964. C.M.A. No. 192 of 1968 arises out of E.I.O.P. No. 35 of 1965 filed by the Corporation claiming a sum of Rs. 58,842 towards employees’ contribution for the period 20th November, 1955 to 31st August, 1963 against Messrs. Vijaya Productions (Private) Limited, lessees of Vijaya Vauhini Studios. Gemini Studios, the respondent in E.I.O.P. No. 6 of 1965, and Messrs. Vijaya Productions (Private) Limited, the respondent in E.I.O.P. No. 35 of 1965, are both concerned in producing motion pictures.

2. All the three petitions of the Corporation were under section 75 (2) of the Employees’ State Insurance Act, 1948 (hereinafter called the Act) and the respective respondent contested the claim on various grounds. However, the Employees’ Insurance Court (hereinafter called the Insurance Court) negatived the contentions of the respondent and allowed the petitions filed by the Corporation. The respective respondent in the three petitions has filed the three Civil Miscellaneous Appeals. We are disposing of all the three appeals by a common judgment as the main question raised in all these appeals is one and the same, viz., question of limitation. As far as C.M.A. Nos. 191 and 192 of 1968 are concerned, all the questions raised are common to both. But it is not so in respect of C.M.A. No. 12 of 1968. However, as the main question, viz., the question of limitation, is common to all these appeals, it would be convenient to dispose of them by a common judgment.

3. The learned Counsel appearing for Messrs. Gemini Studios, the appellant in C.M.A. No. 191 of 1968, argued the question of limitation at great length and the same arguments had been adopted by the learned Counsel in the other two appeals. For the purpose of this question, viz., the question of limitation, it is enough to note the relevant facts in C.M.A. No. 191 of 1968. As seen earlier, the claim by the Corporation under section 75 (2) of the Act is for employees’ contribution for the period 20th November, 1955 to 31st December, 1964. The petition by the Corporation to the Insurance Court making the abovesaid claim came to be filed only in 1965, even though the contribution claimed is for the period commencing from 20th November, 1955. Under the provisions of the Act, the employer shall pay to the Corporation not only the employer’s contribution but also the employees’ contribution, though employees’ contribution so paid by the employer is recoverable by him from the wages of the employees. According to the Corporation, the claim is not barred, as no period of limitation had been prescribed under the Act in respect of contributions claimable by the Corporation. It is also its contention that no Article in the Indian Limitation Act has any application to a petition under section 75 (a) of the Act. By the Amendment Act XLIV of 1966, a new provision has been introduced in the Act as section 77 (I-A) providing that an application under the Act to the Insurance Court shall be made within a period of 3 years from the date on which the cause of action arose. The abovesaid new provision came into effect on 28th January, 1968. Therefore, there is no difficulty regarding the question of limitation for petitions to the Insurance Act made after 28th

Click Here to Read the rest of this document