Amitava Lala, J.
1. Since only question of law is involved, by agreement of the parties the appeal is heard on the informal papers. However, for the sake of formality affidavits are exchanged.
2. This is an appeal arising out of order dated 20th July, 2006 passed by the learned Civil Judge (Senior Division) sitting as a Judge of the Employees' State Insurance Court. By the impugned order, the application of the appellants for waiver/reduction of the amount of mandatory deposit of 50% of the amount due has been rejected. The amount due was Rs. 4,72,560/- for the period from 04th October, 1994 to December, 1996 with interest and further interest of Rs. 59.84 paise per day with effect from 11th April, 2006 till the date of payment. It has only deposited Rs. 13,307/- vide appropriate bank challan dated 17th August, 1999.
3. An appeal shall lie under Section 82 of the Employees' State Insurance Act, 1948 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Act'). To understand the scope and ambit of Section 82 of the Act, such section is quoted hereunder:
82. Appeal.- (1) Save as expressly provided in this section, no appeal shall lie from an order of an Employees' Insurance Court.
(2) An appeal shall lie to the High Court from an order of an Employees' Insurance Court if it involves a substantial question of law.
(3) The period of limitation for an appeal under this section shall be sixty days.
(4) The provisions of sections 5 and 12 of the Limitation Act, 1963 (36 of 1963), shall apply to appeals under this section.
4. It appears to this Court that the scope of appeal was rigidly controlled with the intention of legislature. Admittedly hereunder whether the order of the Court involves a substantial question of law or not, is the prime question. Such question arose in view of Section 75(2-B) of the Act. Section 75(2-B) of the Act is quoted hereunder:
(2-B) No matter which is in dispute between a principal employer and the Corporation in respect of any contribution or any other dues shall be raised by the principal employer in the Employees' Insurance Court unless he has deposited with the Court fifty per cent. of the amount due from him as claimed by the Corporation:
Provided that the Court may, for reasons to be recorded in writing, waive or reduce the amount to be deposited under this sub-section.
5. Learned Counsel appearing for the appellants relied upon an unreported Division Bench judgement of this High Court in First Appeal From Order No. 2665 of 2004 (Sayeed Absar Beedi Works and Anr. v. Employees State Insurance Corporation Panchdeep Bhawan and Anr.) dated 14th October, 2004 and also Division Bench judgement of the Rajasthan High Court reported in 2005 (105) FLR 270 (Hindusthan Zinc Ltd. v. Employees State Insurance Corporation and Ors.). Incidentally it is recorded hereunder that a sum of Rs. 19,27,597/- was deposited in the above referred second case unlike the case under consideration. However, para materia in both the cases it was held that reasons are to be recorded for waiving or reducing the amount to be deposited. Recording of reasons is a statutory requirement. The reasons required to be recorded for waiver of the condition of deposit of the amount indicates that the Court should apply its judicial mind for relaxation of the rigor of the statutory requirement. Against this background, following question arose before this Court:
(a) Whether refusal to give reasons for rejecting the claim of waiver and reduction of the mandatory deposit is a substantial question of law?
6. According to us, law is not to be read in piecemeal manner but as a whole. The Act is promulgated to provide for certain benefits to employees in case of sickness, maternity and employment injury and to make provision for certain other matters in relation thereto. This is a scheme of health insurance for the industrial workers. Against this background, we have to see what is the necessity of rigidity of restricting the disposal of the matters by the Employees' Insurance Court unless there are exceptions as provided under Section 82 of the Act. Even hearing of the matters by such Court is restricted by way of deposit of certain sum under Section 75(2-B) of the Act. The whole intention of the legislature is to save the interest of the weaker section of the people. According to us, such judgements have not effectively interpreted the statute but interfered with the discretion of the Court although in both the judgements, the claims were rejected. We do not find from the proviso under Sub-section (2-b) of Section 75 of the Act that even when the claims are to be rejected, | reasons are required to be given by the Employees' Insurance Court. On the contrary, the proviso categorically says that the Court may, for the reasons to be recorded in writing, waive or reduce the amount to be deposited under this sub-section. Therefore, reasons are compulsory statutory requirement When waiver or reduction is allowed but not when it is rejected. Therefore, order of rejection is a discretionary power and can not be said to be substantial question of law. If it is allowed, the weaker section of the people will be affected Therefore, Court is compelled to provide with reasons of waiver of reduction being statutory requirement otherwise such section of the people Seem to be affected. There is no provision that reasons are also to be given when such prayer is rejected. First part of sub-section 2-B of Section 75 of the Act itself is qualifying section for rejection.
7. Hence, according to us, the ratio of aforesaid judgements are misconstruction of law, which are required to be declared hereunder as per incuriam. Hence, we declare so.
8. Therefore, in our view the appeal can not be sustained and the same is liable to be dismissed. Hence, the appeal is dismissed.
9. However, no order is passed as to costs.
10. I agree.
Pankaj Mithal, J.
11. I agree.