1. A Division Bench of this Court has, in a matter arising under the Employees' State Insurance Act, 1948, (hereinafter referred to as the "Act") referred the following question of law to a Full Bench for its opinion :
"Whether in the case of a disputed demand for contribution under the E.S.I. Act by the E.S.I. Corporation, the latter alone should raise a dispute before the Employees State Insurance Court in accordance with S.75 and S.77 of the E.S.I. Act or any other provision therein; or, whether it is the Employer against whom such levy is made, and by whom it is disputed, who should raise such a dispute before the E.S.I. Court for adjudication ?"

2. The facts leading up to the reference are that a certain employer namely, F. Fibre Bangalore (P) Ltd., on being called upon to pay the Insurance Contributions under the Act, an a sum of Rs. 97,819-39, claimed by the Employees' State Insurance Corporation (hereinafter referred to as the 'Corporation'), to be the wages paid to the employees for and during the year 1967-68 and the Corporation having resorted to recover the contributions demanded as arrears of land revenue, disputed the said liability and approached the Employees' Insurance Court under S.75 of the Act, for a declaration, inter alia that the disputed sum of Rs. 99,819-37 on which Insurance Contributions were demanded did not constitute wages, attracting the liability to contributions on the part of the employer and that, at all events, the demand in this behalf, was barred by time.
In the course of the said proceedings, the employer, on 11th October 1973, filed a Memo which reads :
"The applicant now submits that it is not pressing other issues except praying that a declaration map kindly be given to the effect that the respondent shall not resort to revenue recovery proceedings to recover its claim without seeking an adjudication of the matter before this Hon'ble Court".
What is implicit in this plea is that wherever the employer disputed his liability for the contribution under the 'Act' the Corporation must need, as a condition precedent to the enforceability of its demand, seek an adjudication of its claim before the Employees' Insurance Court. This was the only plea which was urged before the said Court.
By its order dated 30th November, 1973, the Court following the decision of a Division Bench of this Court in Sri Krishna Mills Co. v. Regional Director, Emp. State Ince (1973) 1 Kant LJ 151, wherein the view is taken that where the employers disputed their liability to pay contribution, the Corporation could not itself decide the dispute and make a demand straightway, but that it should refer the question to be decided by the Employees' Insurance Court in accordance with the 'Act', held and answered the issue in favour of the employer and granted its prayer.
The Corporation came up to this Court in appeal under S.32 of the 'Act'. The Division Bench, consisting of Venkataswami and Noronha, JJ. which heard the appeal was of the opinion that the view of the law taken in Sri Krishna Mills Co's., case relied upon by the Corporation was open to doubt and required reconsideration and referred the question to a Full Bench. That is how the matter is before us.

3. The 'Act' is a piece of beneficial legislation and was enacted to effectuate a scheme providing for benefits to the employees and their dependents in cases of sickness, maternity and "employment injury". S.40 of the 'Act' renders the employer liable in the first instance to pay the contributions of the employer as well as the employee to the Corporation subject to the recovery from the employee of the amount he is liable to contribute. S.44 of the "Act" enjoins upon the employer to submit to the Corporation returns as specified therein : S.46 to 73 deal with the benefit which, inter alia, include sickness and disablement benefits and the manner in which and conditions subject to which the said benefits are made available. If the employer fails or neglects to pay the