The court emphasized the limited scope of Section 45-A and the inapplicability of the limitation under Section 77(1-A) to proceedings under Section 45-A.

JUDGMENT :

M. LAXMAN, J.

1. The present appeal assails the order dated 15.12.2004 in E.I. Case No. 52 of 2001 on the file of the Court of the Employees Insurance Court and Chairman, Industrial Tribunal-I, Hyderabad (for short, the Tribunal), whereunder and whereby the order dated 23.05.2001 passed by the first respondent under Section 45-A of the Employees’ State Insurance Act, 1948 (for short, the Act), was confirmed whereunder the liability of the appellant was fixed for Rs. 16,112/-.

2. The case of the respondents-Corporation is that Inspectors of ESI Corporation conducted inspections on the premises of the appellant on 17.07.1987, 28.03.1989, 28.08.1990 and 25.04.1991 and verified the records of the appellant and found that contributions in respect of labours/employees engaged for execution of the works for the expenditure incurred under the heads of mixing the processing charges and repairs and maintenance were not contributed. The appellant was directed to comply the defects through the letters dated 27.07.1989, 04.10.1990, 28.12.1990, 03.07.1991 and 09.12.1991. It is the further case of the respondents-Corporation that the appellant, having receiving such notices, neither complied with the directions nor raised any grievance before the Tribunal under Section 75 of the Act, as such, the claim disputing to the demands is barred under Section 77(1-A) of the Act. When there was no response from the appellant to the correspondence made by the Corporation, a final notice dated 08.04.2001 was issued calling explanation from the appellant for proposed action under Section 45-A of the Act. The appellant submitted an explanation claiming that the records pertaining to the period mentioned in the notice dated 08.04.2001 were not available with it since the period for preservation of the records was completed. Having dissatisfied with the explanation, the Corporation passed the order dated 23.05.2001 determining the liability of the appellant at Rs. 16,112/-. Aggrieved by the same, the appellant herein invoked the jurisdiction of the Tribunal by filing E.I. Case No. 52 of 2001.

3. The Tribunal has upheld the order dated 23.05.2001 of the Corporation vide order dated 15.12.2004. Challenging the same, the appellant filed the present appeal.

4. Heard both sides.

5. On hearing the arguments of both the counsel, and the grounds raised in the present appeal, the following substantial questions of law fall for consideration:

“(i) Whether the respondents are justified in invoking the powers under Section 45-A of the Act in the facts and circumstances of the case, and whether the findings of the Tribunal confirming the order of the respondents under Section 45-A of the Act suffers from any perversity?

(ii) Whether the limitation contemplated under Section 77(1-A) of the Act applies to a claim under Section 45-A of the Act and this finding of the Tribunal suffers from any perversity?

Findings of substantial question of Law No. (ii):

6. Before dealing with the law on the applicability of limitation of Section 77(1-A) of the Act to the proceedings passed under Section 45-A of the Act, it is apt to refer to the provisions of Sections 45-A and 77(1-A) and they read as under:

“45-A. Determination of contributions in certain cases:

(1) Where in respect of a factory or establishment no returns, particulars, registers or records are submitted, furnished or maintained in accordance with the provisions of Section 44 or any Social Security Officer or other official of the Corporation referred to in sub-section (2) of Section 45 is prevented in any manner by the principal or immediate employer or any other person, in exercising his functions or discharging his duties under Section 45, the Corporation may, on the basis of information available to it, by order, determine the amount of contributions payable in respect of the employees of that factory or establishment.

Provided that no such order shall be passed by the Corporation unless the principal or immediate emplo