The provisions of the Limitation Act are not applicable to proceedings before the Employees Insurance Court, and the failure to establish reasons for delay leads to dismissal of the appeal.

JUDGMENT

Applicant in Insurance Case No.1 of 2025 of the Employees Insurance Court, Thrissur, has filed this appeal aggrieved by the order dated 28.05.2025. The insurance case was filed on 12.01.2025, with a delay of 390 days, challenging the order dated 21.12.2020, passed by the ESI Corporation under Section 85B of the ESI Act, levying damages of Rs.69,152/- (Rupees Sixty Thousand One Hundred and Fifty Two only) for the delay in payment of contribution for the period from February 2017 to June 2018. The ESI Court held that the time limit for filing an application as per Section 77 (1A) is three years and the said time limit expired by 20.12.2023. The ESI Court examine the issue as to whether power is available to the said Court under Section 5 of the Limitation Act to condone the delay. The learned Judge referred to the judgment of this Court in M/s.Tripenta Hotels (P) Ltd., v. ESI Corporation, [2016 (3) KHC 283] . This Court, in the said judgment, held that the provisions of Limitation Act are not applicable to the proceedings before the Employees Insurance Court. Hence the request for condonation of delay was rejected by the Insurance Court.

2. In this appeal, the appellant contends that there was no delay in filing the application as the appellant came to know about the order of the ESI Corporation only on 22.02.2024. It was submitted by the learned Counsel of the appellant that the institution was closed and no copy of the order was served on the appellant by the ESI Corporation. The said contention was refuted by the learned Standing Counsel for the ESI Corporation. A counter affidavit has been filed. Along with the counter affidavit, postal acknowledgment has been produced which shows that the notice was served on the appellant in December 2020. Hence, the contention of the appellant that the impugned order came to the knowledge of the appellant only in 2024 cannot be accepted. I find that no substantial question of law is involved in this appeal and the findings and conclusions of the Insurance Court are only to be upheld.

Hence, I dismiss this appeal.

Sd/-