In cases where the dispute relates mainly to the employer and the Corporation, the Court within whose jurisdiction the Corporation is situate, will have the jurisdiction to entertain a petition when the employer is aggrieved by the proceedings emanated from the Corporation.

1. This appeal has been preferred by the employer Sree Lakshmi Medicals represented by its Manager Incharge against the Regional Director, ESI Corporation.

2. The petitioner filed the petition under Section 75 of the Employees State Insurance Act, 1948 before the Principal Judge, City Civil Court, Madras challenging the order No. TN/Ins. II/51-9943-102 dated 12-7-94 demanding a sum of Rs. 43,9467- towards contribution for the period from 1982 to 1991 with interest. According to the petitioner, sufficient opportunity was not given before the demand was made. The condition for the application of the Act was not satisfied with reference to the establishment of the petitioner, as there were no employees numbering more than 20. This petition was numbered as EIOP.SR No. 25269 of 1994. The petitioner filed CMP. No. 128 of 1994 also for waiver of the deposit. These petitions along with the similar other petitions came up before the Employees State Insurance Court i.e. , the Principal Judge, City Civil Court Madras on 31.7.1996. On 31.7.1996, the learned Judge while considering the preliminary issue as to whether the Court at Madras has jurisdiction to entertain the petitions filed by the petitioner, ordered return of the petitions for presentation to proper Court. Challenging the said order, this Civil Miscellaneous Appeal has been filed in this Court.

3. The learned counsel for the appellant submits that as per Rule 16(1) of the Madras Employees Insurance Court Rules, 1951, cases not falling under Sub-Section (1) of Section 76 can be filed where the opposite party resides or carries on business. According to the learned counsel, since the dispute in this particular case is between the appellant and the Regional Director, ESI Corporation alone, the case falls outside the purview of Sub-Section (1) of Section 76 of the Act and hence the petitions were maintainable.

4. Learned counsel for the respondent, on the other hand, contends that since the contribution demanded concerns the employees also, the proper Court having the jurisdiction is where the employees are working i.e. where the establishment of the petitioner is situated. Section 76(1) of the Employees State Insurance Act reads as follows:—

“Subject to the provisions of this Act and any rules made by the State Government, all proceedings before the Employees Insurance Court shall be instituted in the Court appointed for the local area in which the insured person was working at the time the question or dispute arose”.

Here, the jurisdiction is given to the Court, within the loocal limits of the area of whose jurisdiction the insured person was working at the time of the dispute.

5. Rule 16 of the Madras Employees Insurance Courts Rules, 1951 is as follows:—

“In cases not falling under Sub-Section (1) of Section 76, a proceeding against any person shall be instituted in the Court within the local limits of whose jurisdiction:—

a) the opposite party or each of the opposite parties where there are more than one, at the time of commencement of the proceedings, actually and voluntarily resides, or carries on business, or personally works for gain, or

b) any of the opposite parties, where there are more than one, at the time of the commencement of the proceedings, actually and voluntarily resides, or carries on business, or personally works for gain, provided that in such case, carry on business or personally work for gain, as aforesaid, acquiesce in such institution, or

c) the cause of action, wholly or in part, arose”.

When we read Section 76(1), the emphasis is with reference to the insured person and his working place at the time of the dispute.

6. According to the learned counsel for the respondent, since the contribution is for the benefit of the insured persons, it actually concerns the employees, namely, the insured persons and it is not a case where damage is claimed under Section 85 of the Act. In case like one under Section 85, the dispute would be between the employer