A.V. Srinivasa Reddy, J.
1. This appeal by the E.S.I. Corporation arises from the order of the E.S.I. Court at Bangalore in E.S.I. Application No. 9 of 1995 being aggrieved by the order setting aside the demand for contribution, made by the Corporation from the respondent-company, for the period from 19-11-1975 to 25-3-1977 and upholding the demand for contribution for March and April 1984.
2. The respondent was covered under the provisions of the E.S.I. Act (for short, 'the Act'). On 17-5-1982, 17-4-1984 and 14-7-1984 the appellant-Corporation raised demand for contribution of the amount under the Act to the fund of the Corporation. The period for which these claims were made, admittedly, was from 19-11-1975 to 25-3-1977. The other claim made for the months of March and April 1984 was dated 13-7-1984. A contention was raised by the respondent-company that the claim in respect of the period from 19-11-1975 to 25-3-1977 was time bar-red. The said contention by the respondent-company was accepted by the E.S.I. Court which, however, upheld the claim made on 13-7-1984 as being within time. There is no appeal by the respondent from that part of the order. The appeal presented by the corporation is limited to the period from 19-11-1975 to 25-3-1977,
3. The learned Counsel for the appellant placing reliance on the decision in Goodyear India Limited v. Regional Director, Employees' State Insurance Corporation and Ors., : (1997)IILLJ366SC (SC) contended that there is no bar of limitation for making a claim for contribution and the cause of action for contribution would arise only after the decision by the Insurance Court is laid in a proceedings under Section 75 of the Act. The learned Counsel for the respondent, on the other hand, placed reliance on Regional Director, ESI Corporation, Bangalore v. CIGIFL Limited, Bangalore, 2002(3) Kar. L.J. 161 : 2002-II-LLJ-635 (Kar.) : ILR 2002 Kar. 1768 and contended that there is a period of limitation prescribed in the statute itself in regard to adjudication under Section 75. It is the stand of the respondents that under Section 77 there is bar for a claim by corporation for recovering contributions after five years of the period to which the claim relates.
4. The substantial question of law that arises for my consideration is:
Whether the demand in question, which is under Section 75 of the Act, is to be determined with reference to the provision contained in Section 77(1-A)(b) as it stands now or as it stood prior to the coming into force of the Amendment Act 29 of 1989, which came into effect from 20-10-1989?
5. The present proceedings arise from a decision by the Employees' Insurance Court in a matter in dispute between the Corporation and a principal employer in respect of contribution under the Act and, there fore, it is a proceedings under Section 75(g) of the Act. It is not a case where the Corporation complains that no returns, particulars, registers or records are submitted, furnished or maintained or any inspector or official of the corporation was prevented in any manner in exercising his functions under Section 45. Therefore, the claim made by the corporation cannot be termed as one made under Section 45A of the Act.
6. This being a proceedings under Section 75 it remains to be seen whether the rejection of the claim by the Court below on the ground of limitation is correct. Such a question came up for consideration before the Apex Court in M/s. Goodyear India Limited's case, supra. The Apex Court with reference to Section 77 of the Act, as it stood prior to its amendment, held that the cause of action for contribution would arise only after the decision by the Insurance Court in the proceedings is laid under Section 75 of the Act. The period involved in this appeal is earlier to 20-10-1989 on which date the Amendment Act 29 of 1989 came into force. The Apex Court has reasoned in the said decision that the amendment having taken place after the cause of action arose, the amendment would have no application to the proceedings in the said case. The said principle squarely applies to the facts of the present case. Herein also the cause of action arose much earlier to 20-10-1989 on which date the Amendment Act came into force, as the period for which the claim made is from 19-11-1975 to 25-3-1977. Sub-clause (b) to Sub-section (1-A) of Section 77 as it stood prior to amendment did not prescribe any limitation for making of a claim by the Corporation for contribution. Therefore, there is no bar of limitation for the payment of the contribution under the Act.
7. This Court in Regional Director, ESI Corporation's case, supra, had occasion to deal with Section 77 and while interpreting the provision in respect to the limitation provided in it for recovery of arrears of contribution, the Court observed:
'If the Corporation approaches the ESI Court for adjudication in a case where it feels more appropriate to move the ESI Court for adjudication rather than seek adjudication under Section 45A, definitely the limitation as provided under Section 77 would be applicable. In other words, the period of limitation prescribed under Section 77 for an application under Section 75 definitely will apply to such adjudication'.
There can be no two opinions about the correctness of the above proposition as it merely reiterates the bar that is provided in the provision. In the said case the Court was seized of a claim which concerned a period subsequent to the date on which the Amendment Act came into force. As the matter therein was in regard to a claim related to a period which is subsequent to the coming into force of the amended Section 77, the Amendment Act 29 of 1989 having come into force with effect from 20-10-1989, any claim under adjudication under Section 75 of the Act would be governed by the bar of limitation prescribed by Section 30 of the Amendment Act 29 of 1989. But, as the case herein relates to a period anterior to 20-10-1989, in terms of the decision in M/s. Goodyear India Limited's case, supra, the cause of action for contribution would arise only after the decision of the Insurance Court in the proceedings laid under Section 75 of the Act. Therefore, in all matters arising for consideration of the Court under Section 75 which relate back to the period anterior to 20-10-1989, from when on the amended Act came into force, the bar of limitation would not operate. Therefore, the order of the Court below is liable to be set aside and the demand of the Corporation has to be upheld.
8. In the result, the appeal is allowed and the order of the Court below rejecting the demand for contribution for the period from 19-11-1975 to 25-3-1977 is set aside. The demand for the period is upheld and the respondent is directed to comply with the demand within 30 days from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order failing which the appellant would be free to proceed in accordance with law for the recovery of the amount due under the demand.