Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

12. Further, the calculations submitted by the Establishments in a tabular format were accepted and it was found that only 25% of the amount is to be considered to

-

calculate the contribution. On the specific finding that there was an interim stay by the Apex Court, the ESI Court also held that interest could not be calculated for the period when the parties were before the Courts of law.

13. The learned counsel appearing for the appellants contends that the period of limitation to file an application under Sections 75 to 77 of the ESI Act before the ESI Court is mandated by Section 77(1A) of the ESI Act. Such application has mandatorily to be made within a period of three years from the date on which the cause of action arose. It is submitted that explanation (b) to Section 77(1A) of the ESI Act provides that the cause of action in respect of a claim by the Corporation for recovering contributions (including interest and damages) from the principal employer shall be deemed to have arisen on the date on which such claim is made by the Corporation for the first time.

I]."

Section 45C of the ESI Act provides for the issuance of the Certificate to the recovery officer and mode of recovery.

-

Section 75 of the ESI Act provides for matters to be decided by the Employees Insurance Court and Section 76 of the ESI Act provides for institution of such proceedings.

Section 77 of the ESI Act reads as follows:-

"77. Commencement of proceedings. (1) The proceedings before an Employees' Insurance Court shall be commenced by application.

The second question is answered holding that the applications under Section 75 of the ESI Act have to be preferred within three years from the date of determination orders being passed under Section 45A of the ESI Act. The applications filed in all these cases except in MFA No.7695/2022 were therefore belated.

The third question is answered holding that the question of re-determining the contribution payable was well

-

within the power of the ESI Court; where the ESI Court had considered the materials on record and come to a conclusion that the determination of the contribution payable was factually erroneous. There is power in the Court to modify the contribution payable. The judgments of the Apex Court relied on cannot be understood as restricting the power of the ESI Court.