Bishambhar Dayal, C.J.

This is a Letters Patent Appeal against the decision of a learned Single Judge of this Court dated 25th March 1969 in Miscellaneous (First) Appeal No. 87 of 1968, holding that by virtue of Section 43 of the Employees' State Insurance Amendment Act, 1966 the provisions of the original Employees' State Insurance Act, 1948 relating to the application by the Employees' State Insurance Corporation for reimbursing itself with regard to the payment which it had to make to a workman in respect of an employment injury are saved.

Circumstances in which the question arose may be briefly stated. One Govindram was employed by Satna Cement Works (Appellant No 2). He sustained certain injuries on 16-10-1963. The claim of the Employees' State Insurance Corporation was that it was entitled to receive some amount in respect of this injury sustained by Govindram as it was employment injury. The Corporation filed an application under Section 75 read with Section 66 of the Employees' State Insurance Act on 3-7-1967. This application was rejected by the Tribunal established under the Act on the ground that Section 66, which gave a right to the Corporation to reimburse itself from the employer, had been deleted by a notification under the Amending Act on 17-6-1967 and Sub-Sections 1(f) and 2(c) of Section 75, which authorised the Tribunal to decide these matters, had been repealed with effect from 28th January 1968 and consequently the Tribunal had no further jurisdiction to hear the application on merits. Against that order an appeal was filed in this Court and the learned Single Judge on an interpretation of Section 43 of the Employees' State Insurance Amendment Act, 1966 came to the conclusion that the saving clause retained the Tribunal's jurisdiction He accordingly directed that the Tribunal should proceed with the application. Against that order the present Letters Patent Appeal has been filed.

It is important to refer to the, relevant part of Section 43 of the Amendment Act which is as under:

No provision of this Act shall apply...... in relation to any payment which....-is required to be made under the principal Act in respect of any employment injury sustained by any employee in any State or part thereof at any time before the date of coming into operation of that provision and any such... .application... .relating to such payment pending before any authority immediately before such date shall continue to be governed by the provisions of the principal Act as they stood immediately before that date.

It is obvious that under this section, it is intended to save the applicability of the provisions which have been repealed under the repealing Act if the repealed provisions have any relation to any payment in respect of an employment injury sustained before the repeal. The question for consideration, therefore, was whether Sections 66 and 75 of the Employees, State Insurance Act which had been repealed are such provisions which have any relation to the payment of that nature.

Section 66 is as follows:

(1) Where any employment injury is sustained by an insured person as an employee under this Act by reason of the negligence of the employer to observe any of the safety rules laid down by or under any enactment applicable to a factory or establishment or by reason of any wrongful act of the employer or his agent, the Corporation shall notwithstanding the fact that the employer has paid the weekly contributions due under this Act in respect of such insured person be entitled to be reimbursed by the employer or the principal who is liable to pay compensation under Section 12 of the Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923, the actuarial present value of the periodical payments which the Corporation is liable to make under this Act

(2) For the purposes of this Act, the actuarial present value of the periodical payments shall be determined in such manner as may be specified in the regulations.

On a plain reading of this section, it is appare