Application for recovery of contributions under the Act is governed by Article 137 of Limitation Act, 1963.

Both the appeals are by the employees. C.M.A. No. 63 of 1967 is against the order passed by the District Judge, Madurai, in O.P. No. 2 of 1965 filed by the appellants stating that they were not obliged to respect a demand for contributions made by the Employees’ State Insurance Corporation under the Employees’ State Insurance Act, 1948. C.M.A. No. 64 of 1967 is against the order in O.P. No. 4. of 1965 filed by the Corporation against the firm for contribution. The period during which the firm was liable to contribute is agreed and is not in dispute. Even so the amount is payable by the firm to the Corporation. I am not, therefore, touching that aspect of the case and the facts thereto as, in the view that I intend taking finally, it may not be necessary. However, the period during which the contribution is asked for is between 15th July, 1953 30th June, 1961. There is some variation in the pleadings, in this case, as to the amount which the Corporation claims in their petition and the amount which the firm says it is not liable. Ultimately, however, the parties have agreed that a sum of Rs. 2,801-41 is the amount which the firm will be liable, if at all it is made liable, and the Corporation will be entitled to recover, if it is entitled to recover.

The primary question, however, is one of limitation. The Corporation wrote to the appellant in June, 1964, calling upon them to furnish returns from 30th September, 1953. The Corporation also demanded that the firm was liable to pay employers’ special contribution from 15th July, 1953, as also employee’s contributions from 28th October, 1953. The firm, for the first time, submitted the returns under Chapter IV of the Employees State Insurance Act only after the date of demand made by the Corporation and referred to above. The Corporation thereafter filed this application in 1965, for recovery of the said amount and firm also filed an independent application questioning the right of the Corporation to recover the same. The lower Court was of the view that the claim of the Corporation was sustainable and within time and granted a decree in the sum of Rs. 2,801.41, and dismissed O.P. No. 2 of 1965. It is in those circumstances the firm has come up in civil miscellaneous appeals questioning the legality and propriety of the order of the learned District Judge.

As the quantum is not in dispute, the only question is whether the claim of the Corporation is barred by limitation. Learned Counsel appearing for the respondent would state that section 17 of the Limitation Act is attracted in the instant case, and as the appellant did not file the returns as contemplated in Chapter IV of the Act, they failed in their legal and statutory obligations and therefore such act of theirs would enlarge the period of limitation within the meaning of the proviso to section 17. On the other hand it is contended that section 17 is not applicable to the instant case at all and the only Article of the Limitation Act which if at all could be pressed into service is Article 137, and that Article prescribes only three years as the period within which recovery can be made and therefore the claim made in O.P. No. 4 of 1965 is barred and that O.P. No. 2 of 1965 has to be allowed.

It is not seriously disputed that for the recovery of the amounts, by way of contributions under the Employees’ State Insurance Act, 1948, there is no specific period prescribed under the Limitation Act XXXVI of 1963. This being the very foundation for the application of section 17, I am unable to agree with learned Counsel for the respondent that section 17 could be invoked in this case. Section 17 (1) begins by saying:

“ Where, in the case of any suit or application for which a period of limitation is prescribed by this act..........”

There is no prescription, and hence section 17 cannot be invoked for the benefit of the respondent’s contentions. I am inclined to agree with the contention of learned Counsel for the appellants that