There is no time limit for recovery of contribution.

A. KULASEKARAN, J.

Appellants impugned in these appeals the common order passed by the learned single Judge dismissing the two writ petitions in W.P. Nos. 8910 of 1998 and 8911 of 1998 filed by them against the recovery of proceedings of the first respondent herein one for the period from January 1, 1983 to February 28, 1983 and the other for the period from March 1, 1983 to November 30, 1989.

The appellant company is engaged in distributing and marketing education and reference books. A notice dated January 9, 1990 was issued by the first respondent herein to show cause why the Employees' State Insurance Contribution should not be demanded in view of Section 38 of the Act. Ultimately the first respondent passed order dated October 25, 1991 under Section 45-A of the Act determining the contribution at Rs. 1, 60, 670.30 for the period from March 1, 1983 to November 30, 1989 and contribution of Rs. 2, 772 for the period from January 1, 1983 to February 28, 1983. Aggrieved by the said orders the appellant herein filed two applications under Section 75 of the Act before the Insurance Court/I Additional Judge, City Civil Court, Chennai but the same were dismissed by order dated November 19, 1992. The appellant herein did not agitate the matter any further. Ultimately the respondents herein initiated recovery proceedings under Section 45-C to 45-I of the Act. At that stage the appellant herein filed W.P. Nos. 8910 and 8911 of 1998 and canvassed before the learned single Judge that the recovery proceedings are time barred under Section 77 of the Act and also without jurisdiction. The respondents filed separate identical counters in the said two writ petitions. It is stated in the counters that the appellant herein was not (sic) given adequate opportunity at all. It is mentioned in the said counter that show cause notice was preceded by an inspection by the Insurance Inspector on March 23, 1988 and it was found that the establishment was coverable under the Act from March 1, 1983. Thereafter Code number was allotted on June 8, 1988. A personal hearing was held on March 28, 1990. One Mr. K. Vasu, Manager of the establishment appeared in the personal enquiry. The basis of C-18 notice was explained to him. As requested by him time was granted to submit statement of actual dues by April 27, 1990 but none appeared on that day. The counsel for the appellant herein appeared on May 15, 1990 and requested for further time. Accordingly time was granted till November 29, 1990 and again adjourned to April 9, 1991 and May 7, 1991 as requested by the appellant. On May 7, 1991 one Mr. Peter Naidu, Director of the Establishment and their counsel appeared with (sic) their submissions. Thereafter a detailed order was passed under Section 45-A determining the contribution payable by the appellant company. The appellant company has not let in any evidence to say that the claim made under C-18 was baseless. It is also mentioned in the said counter that the appellant had opportunity to go through the inspection report in the proceedings before the E.I. Court. The appellant herein has not filed any reply to the said counter to deny the said facts. After hearing the counsel for both sides the learned single Judge has dismissed both the writ petitions by passing a detailed common orderThe learned counsel for appellant Mr. K. Sridhar canvassed before us (i) that the recovery proceedings are time barred either under Section 77 of the Act or under Article 137 of the Limitation Act since the claim according to the learned counsel is beyond the period of three years and (ii) The Corporation is not vested with jurisdiction in claiming the contribution under the Act.

The learned counsel appearing for the respondent Mr. G. Desappan rebutted the contentions.

Under Section 45-A of the Act any factory or establishment not submitted returns, particulars, registers or records in accordance with the provisions of Section 44 or any Inspector or other Officials of th