1983 (3) TMI 308 - HC - Indian Laws

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Applicability of the Limitation Act to the Employees Insurance Court.
2. Authority of the Employees Insurance Court as a "Court" under the Limitation Act.
3. Application of Section 5 of the Limitation Act to Rule 26(5) of the Bombay Employees Insurance Court Rules, 1959.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Applicability of the Limitation Act to the Employees Insurance Court:

The primary issue raised by the appellants was whether the Employees Insurance Court is a "Court" within the meaning of the Limitation Act, thereby making the provisions of the Limitation Act applicable to proceedings under Rule 26 of the Bombay Employees Insurance Court Rules, 1959. The appellants contended that the Employees Insurance Court is a domestic Tribunal, not a Court in the strict sense of the term, and thus, the provisions of the Limitation Act, including Section 5, do not apply. They relied on the decision in M/s. Popular Process Studio v. Employees State Insurance Corporation, where it was held that the Employees Insurance Court is not a Court for the purposes of the Limitation Act.

2. Authority of the Employees Insurance Court as a "Court" under the Limitation Act:

The judgment clarified that the criteria for determining whether a Tribunal is a Court include its power to give definitive judgments and its source of judicial power. The Employees Insurance Court, constituted under Section 74 of the Employees State Insurance Act, 1948, has the authority to decide disputes enumerated in Section 75 of the Act. It possesses powers akin to those of a Civil Court, such as summoning witnesses, compelling the production of documents, and administering oaths, as outlined in Section 78 of the Act. Additionally, its orders are enforceable as if they were decrees passed by a Civil Court. The Court referenced the Supreme Court's decision in Thakur Jugal Kishore Sinha v. The Sitamarhi Central Co-operative Bank Ltd. and the Full Bench decision in Bapusaheb Patil v. The State of Maharashtra, which laid down the criteria for a Tribunal to be considered a Court. Based on these criteria, the Employees Insurance Court was deemed a "Court" for all practical purposes, including the application of Section 5 of the Limitation Act.

3. Application of Section 5 of the Limitation Act to Rule 26(5) of the Bombay Employees Insurance Court Rules, 1959:

Rule 26(5) of the Bombay Employees Insurance Court Rules, 1959, prescribes a 30-day period for filing an application to set aside an order of dismissal. The judgment noted that this period aligns with the limitation period prescribed under Article 122 of the Limitation Act for similar applications. Consequently, the provisions of Section 5 of the Limitation Act, which allows for the condonation of delay, should apply to applications filed under Rule 26(5). The Court emphasized that there was no express exclusion of Section 5 of the Limitation Act in the Employees State Insurance Act, 1948. Therefore, the learned Single Judge was justified in applying Section 5 of the Limitation Act to condone the delay in filing the application for restoration of the dismissed application.

Conclusion:

The appeal was dismissed, affirming the decision of the learned Single Judge to allow the application for restoration of the dismissed application by condoning the delay under Section 5 of the Limitation Act. The judgment concluded that the Employees Insurance Court is indeed a "Court" within the meaning of the Limitation Act, and the provisions of Section 5 of the Limitation Act are applicable to applications filed under Rule 26(5) of the Bombay Employees Insurance Court Rules, 1959.