The requirement for the State Government to notify the constitution of the Employees' Insurance Court for a specified local area and the interpretation of the provisions of the Employees' State Insurance Act, 1948 to determine jurisdiction and limitation period.

JUDGMENT

Anil Kshetarpal, J. - The Employees' State Insurance Corporation has filed this regular second appeal assailing the correctness of the concurrent finding of fact arrived at by the Courts below while allowing a petition filed by respondent No.1 under Section 74 and 75 of the Employees' State Insurance Act, 1948 (hereinafter referred to as "the 1948 Act").

2. The learned trial Court has awarded a sum of Rs.2,00,000/- to respondent-Bhupinder Singh, on account of injuries suffered in an accident on 09.07.2019 while coming back from his workplace. He received grievous injuries and remained admitted in the Government Medical College and Hospital, Sector 32, Chandigarh, for a period of one month. He suffered disability to the extent of 20%.

3. The learned counsel representing the appellant has contended that the petition was not filed before the competent Court. He further submitted that the petition, as filed, was beyond the prescribed period and therefore, both the Courts below have erred in decreeing the same.

4. Before proceeding to analyse the arguments of learned counsel for the appellant, it is important to note that Section 74 of the 1948 Act reads as under:-

"74. Constitution of Employees' Insurance Court. - (1) The State Government shall, by notification in the Official Gazette, constitute an Employees' Insurance Court for such local area as may be specified in the notification.

(2) The Court shall consist of such number of judges as the State Government may think fit.

(3) Any person who is or has been a judicial officer or is a legal practitioner of five years' standing shall be qualified to be a Judge of the Employees' Insurance Court.

(4) The State Government may appoint the same Court for two or more local areas or two or more Courts for the same local area.

(5) Where more than one Court has been appointed for the same local area, the State Government may by general or special order regulate the distribution of business between them".

5. On a bare reading of the aforesaid provision, it is apparent that the State Government is required to notify, in the official gazette, the constitution of the Employees' Insurance Court for such local area as may be specified in the notification. Any person, who is or has been a Judicial Officer or is a legal practitioner of five years' standing, is qualified to be a Judge of the Employees' Insurance Court.

6. From a plain reading of the judgment under challenge, it is apparent that the learned Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division), while dealing with the aforesaid contention, has found that the Court of the concerned Presiding Officer is a notified Court as per Section 74 of the 1948 Act. Learned counsel representing the appellant has failed to draw the attention of the Court to the aforesaid notification of the State constituting the Employees' Insurance Court. In the absence thereof, the argument of learned counsel representing the appellant does not have any substance. Hence, the same is rejected.

7. The next argument of the learned counsel representing the appellant is that the petition was filed beyond the prescribed period. It would be noted here that Section 77(1)(a) of the 1948 Act prescribes that every such application shall be made within a period of three years from the date on which the cause of action arose. The accident in question took place on 09.07.2009. Thus, it is contended that the petition was filed beyond the prescribed time. It would be noted here that both the Courts below have examined the aforesaid issue and found that the employee, while calculating the limitation period, was entitled to exclude the period spent by him bonafidely before the District Consumer Redressal Forum and the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission. In the appeal, on 19.09.2013, the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission directed the petitioner to file the claim petition under Section 74 of the 1948 Act. After getting a certified copy of the order, the respondent filed the c