http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 2  

PETITIONER: EMPLOYEES STATE INSURANCE CORPORATION

       Vs.

RESPONDENT: DWARKA NATH BHARGWA

DATE OF JUDGMENT:       21/08/1997

BENCH: S. B. MAJMUDAR, S. SAGHIR. AHMAD

ACT:

HEADNOTE:

JUDGMENT: Present:              Hon‘ble Mr. Justice S.B. Majmudar              Hon‘ble Mr. Justice S. Saghir Ahmad Arvind Kr.  Sharma, Ms.  Anubha Jain, Advs. for S.N. Terdol, Advs for the appellant                       J U D G M E N T The following Judgment of the Court was delivered: MAJMUDAR, J.      The Employees  State Insurance  Corporation has brought in challenge  the  order  passed  by  Allahabad  High  Court disposing of  the first appeal from order No.362 of 1972. By the impugned  judgment ,  the High  Court has taken the view that provisions  of  Section  45B  of  the  Employees  State Insurance Act,  1948 (hereinafter  referred to as "the Act") enabling recovery  of contribution  payable under the Act as arrears of  land revenue  cannot be  pressed into service by the appellant-Corporation in the pressed into service by the appellant-Corporation in  the present  case. Reason given by the High court for the said conclusion is to the effect that the effect  that the  recoveries pertain to the period prior to the date on which Section 45B was inserted in the statute book. The  said section was brought into force on 28.1.1968, while the  amount sought  to be  recovered became payable on 27.1.1967 and  24.1.1968. It  is of  course true  that these amounts were  to be paid by the respondent employer on these relevant dates,  but these contribution were not made by the respondent in  time. Therefore,  they remained  in  arrears. After section  45B was  brought on the statute book, notices were issued  to the respondent on 24.4.1970 and 9.9.1970 for effecting   recoveries    of   these   unpaid   amounts   of contributions by  resort to  section 45B Question, therefore is as  to whether  for  the  aforesaid  contributions  which remained unpaid  resort to  Section 45B could be effected on any day after the said section came on the statute book? Now a mere  look at  the said  section came on the statute book? Now a  mere  at  the  said  section  shows  that  in  is  of procedural nature. It provides that any contribution payable under these Act may be recovered as arrear of land revenue’, Consequently, on  the date  on which  the recovery by way of arrears of  land revenue is to be effected, the contribution

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 2  

in question should have remained unpaid.      It is  not in  dispute and  cannot be disputed that the contributions  in   question  had   remained   payable   all throughout and were paid by the respondent. The day on which recovery by  way of  land revenue  was sought  to  be  made, section had  already come into force. As it was a procedural provision, it could obviously apply retrospectively to cover all contributions  which had  remained unpaid  even prior to the date on which the section come into force. In support of this contention,  learned counsel  force. In support of this contention,  learned   counsel  for  the  appellant  rightly invited our  attention to a decision of the Privy Council in Cloth and General Mills Co. Ltd vs. Income Tax Commissioner, Delhi and Another reported in AIR 1927 PC 242 wherein it has been laid  down that  ’while provisions of a statute dealing merely with  matters of  procedure may properly, unless that construction be  textually inadmissible,  have retrospective effect attributed to them, provisions which touch a right in existence at  the passing  to the  statute  are  not  to  be applied retrospectively  in the absence of express enactment or necessary intendment’.      As the  aforesaid provision  is  purely  procedural  in nature,  It   cannot.  be   gainsaid  that   it  could  have retrospective effect.  Consequently, the  connection is well made out  and must  be accepted.  We, therefore,  hold  that Section 45B  can be pressed in service to effect recovery of unpaid contributions  when the  contributions nave  remained unpaid since  prior to  the coming into force of Section 45B and have throughout also remained unpaid.      Consequently,  notices   issued  in  the  present  case against the  respondent could not be said to be unauthorised or incompetent.  The appeal  is  accordingly,  allowed,  The judgment and  order of the High Court as well as that of the Employees Insurance  Court, Allahabad  are  set  aside.  The respondent’s  application  before  the  Employees  Insurance Court is disposed of in aforesaid terms. No costs.