Back
1962 Supreme(MP) 4
High Court Of Madhya Pradesh
P. R. Sharma, J.
JIYAJIRAO COTTON MILLS LTD. - Appellant
Versus
EMPLOYEES STATE INSURANCE CORPORATION THROUGH ITS LOCAL - Respondents
Misc. Civil Case 57 Of 1961
Decided On : 01/17/1962
A.B.MISHRA, J.P.Diwan, S.T.Mungre
The State Government has the power to constitute an Employees' Insurance Court and appoint a Judge to discharge its functions without first framing rules under Section 96 of the Employees' State Insurance Act, 1948. An appointment made before the Act came into force is valid under Section 22 of the General Clauses Act, 1897, and becomes effective upon the Act's commencement.
Headnote:
EMPLOYEES' STATE INSURANCE ACT, 1948 - SECTIONS 74, 96 - REVIEW APPLICATION - VALIDITY OF APPOINTMENT OF EMPLOYEES' INSURANCE COURT JUDGE - COURT CONSTITUTION AND APPOINTMENT OF JUDGE - RULE-MAKING POWER - GENERAL CLAUSES ACT, 1897 - SECTION 22 - APPOINTMENT BEFORE ACT'S COMMENCEMENT - VALIDITY.
Fact of the Case:
An application for review of a judgment and decree passed by the court in a case involving the validity of the appointment of an Employees' Insurance Court Judge under the Employees' State Insurance Act, 1948. The applicant challenged the appointment on the grounds that the court was not properly constituted and that the appointment process did not comply with the Act's provisions.
Finding of the Court:
The court held that the appointment of the Employees' Insurance Court Judge was valid and dismissed the review application. It found that the State Government had the power to constitute an Employees' Insurance Court and appoint a Judge to discharge its functions without first framing rules under Section 96 of the Act. The court also held that the appointment made before the Act came into force was valid under Section 22 of the General Clauses Act, 1897, and became effective upon the Act's commencement.
Issues: 1. Whether the State Government was required to constitute an Employees' Insurance Court before appointing a Judge to discharge its functions. 2. Whether the State Government was bound to frame rules under Section 96 of the Act before exercising its power to appoint an Employees' Insurance Court Judge under Section 74. 3. Whether the appointment of an Employees' Insurance Court Judge made before the Act came into force was valid.
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The court held that the State Government was not required to constitute an Employees' Insurance Court before appointing a Judge to discharge its functions. It found that the word "court" in Section 74 of the Act was used in a compendious sense and that the State Government had the power to appoint a Judge to discharge the functions of the court without first constituting it. 2. The court held that the State Government was not bound to frame rules under Section 96 of the Act before exercising its power to appoint an Employees' Insurance Court Judge under Section 74. It found that the provisions of Section 96 were merely enabling in nature and did not place an embargo on the other provisions of the Act. 3. The court held that the appointment of an Employees' Insurance Court Judge made before the Act came into force was valid under Section 22 of the General Clauses Act, 1897. It found that the appointment was made after the Act was passed but before it came into operation and that it became effective upon the Act's commencement.
Final Decision: The court dismissed the review application and upheld the validity of the appointment of the Employees' Insurance Court Judge.
( 1 ) THIS is an application for review of the judgment and decree passed by me in Civil Misc. Appeal No. 35 of 1960.
( 2 ) THE sole ground on which this review application is urged is that Shri Shah, by whom the application under Section 66 of the Employees' State Insurance Act, 1948 was entertained and tried, was not a properly constituted Court under the provisions of Section 74 read with Section 96 of the Employees' State Insurance Act (hereinafter referred to as the Act ).
( 3 ) IN order to appreciate the points raised by Shri Mishra in the course of his arguments a few facts might first be mentioned. The Employees' State Insurance Act was, with the exception of certain Sections (which had already been brought into force) brought into force in certain areas of the former State of Madhya Bharat by a Notification issued by the Central Government which was published in Madhya Bharat Government Gazette dated 22-1-1955. It was stated therein that the provisions of Chapters IV, V and VI of the Act (with the exception of certain Sections mentioned therein) shall come into force in the areas of Indore, Greater Gwalior, Ujjain and Rutlam with effect from the 23rd of January, 1955. By anothet Notification published in the same issue of the Gazette the State Government, in exercise of its powers under Section 74 of the Act, appointed the Labour Judges' of Indore and Ujjain as the Employees' Insurance Courts for the areas specified against each of them. In the same issue were also published the Rules made by the State Government under Section 96 of the Act.
( 4 ) THREE contentions were raised by learned counsel for the applicant in support of this review application : Firstly, he contended that an Employees' insurance Court had first to be constituted before any person could be appointed as a Judge of that Court; secondly it was contended by him that the State Government was bound in the first instance to frame rules in exercise of its powers under Clause (a) of Section 96 of the Act, regarding constitution of Employees' Insurance Courts, the qualifications of the persons who may be appointed as Judges thereof, and tho conditions of service of such Judges, and that it was only after this had been done that the State Government could exercise the power vested in it under, the provisions of Section 74 of the Act; lastly it was contended by the learned counsel that the State Government had under Rule 4 of the Madhya Bharat Employees' State Insurance Rules, 1954 provided that presiding officers of civil or criminal Courts could, in addition to their regular duties, be appointed to work as Judges of the Employees' Insurance Court. From this provision the learned counsel sought to draw the conclusion that where it was intended to appoint any judicial officer as an Employees' Insurance Court in addition to his regular duties, such judicial officer ought to have been the presiding officer of a civil or criminal Court. No one else could according to the learned counsel, be appointed to function as an Employees' Insurance Court in addition to his other judicial functions.
( 5 ) I shall proceed to examine these contentions in order : Section 74 of the Act runs 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 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 busines
