D.P. Wahdwa, J.
(1) This second appeal is against the judgments and decrees of both the courts below whereby suit of the appellant (plaintiff) for a declaration that his establishment was not covered under the provisions of the Employees State insurance Act, 1984 (for short 'the Act') was dismissed.
(2) The plaintiff claimed that he was proprietor of M/s Delhi Steel and Foundry Works which establishment at no point of time employed more than eighteen employees. Plaintiff said thereforee, that he was no covered under the Act as the Act applied only to establishments or factories which employed twenty or more persons at any point of time preceding twelve months. Plaintiff said his establishment was not required to be registered under the Act and provisions of that Act would not apply to him. Plaintiff said he had come to know that his establishment was being covered under the Act and that Employees State Insurance Corporation (for short 'the Corporation') defendant No. I, had in fact directed District Collector and the District Collection Officer, Delhi, respondents 2 and 4 respectively, to recover the employees' and employer's contribution under the Act from the plaintiff as arrears of land revenue. The plaintiff thereforee, wanted a restraint order against the defendants from recovering any such demand. This, in short, is the case of the plaintiff and be, thereforee, sought declaration that his establishment was not covered under the Act and that provisions of the Act were not applicable to him and he also sought injunction restraining the defendants from taking any proceedings under the Act or to recover any amount from the plaintiff under the provisions of the Act. In the alternative the plaintiff prayed that in case it was held that his establishment was covered under the Act, then he be asked to pay only that amount of contribution under the Act which was lawful and that ex-parte assessment against him be set aside.
(3) The Corporation, which was the principal contesting defendant, filed its written statement and raised various objections to jurisdiction of a civil court.
(4) On the pleas of the parties following issues were framed :
(1)Whether the suit is not maintainable in view of the provisions of S. 75 of the Employees State Insurance Act (2) If this court has jurisdiction to try the suit? (3) If the suit barred for mis-joinder of parties (4) If the plaintiff's factor not covered under the Esi Act If so. its effect. (5) If the suit not properly valued (6) To what relief, if any. is the plaintiff entitled
(5) The trial court treated first three issues as preliminary issues. Both the parties made statements that they would not lead any oral evidence on these issues. The trial court held issues I and 2 in favor of the Corporation holding that civil court has no jurisdiction in the matter. On issue No. 3 the trial court held that the suit was bad for mis-joinder of defendants No. 2 and 3. The plaintiff appealed and the first appellate court upheld the judgment and decree of the trial court and dismissed the appeal. This led the plaintiff to file this second appeal.
(6) The Act provides for certain benefits to employees in case of sickness, maternity and employment injury and makes provision for certain other matters in relation thereto. It is not disputed that for the applicability of the Act there has to be twenty or more persons employed in any factory or establishment, as provided in the Act. Under Section 2A of the Act every factory or establishment, to which the Act applies, shall be registered within such time and in such manner as may be specified in the regulations made in this behalf. The 'employee' has been defined under Section 2(9) of the Act and it means any person employed for wages in or in connection with the work of factory or establishment to which the Act applies. I have extracted this definition so far as it is relevant for the present case. Chapter-VI the Act provides for adjudication of dispute and claims. Under Section 74, falling under this chapter, the State .Government is to constitute Employees' Insurance Court Section 75 provides for matters to be decided by Employees' Insurance Court. Again, so far as it is, relevant for the present case sub-section (1) of this section provides that any question or dispute as to whether any person is an employee within the meaning of the Act or whether he is liable to pay the employee's contribution shall be decided by the Employees' Insurance Court subject to the provisions of sub-section (2) (A) of Section 75 of the Act. Under sub-section (3) of Section 75 no civil court shall have jurisdiction to decide or deal with any question or dispute as provided in sub-section (1) of Section 75 or to adjudicate on any liability which by or under the Act is to be decided by a medical board or by a medical appeal tribunal or by the Employees' Insurance Court. There is thus a complete bar to the civil court taking cognizance of the dispute or question whether any person is an employee or whether he is liable pay to the employee's contribution under the Act. This, in fact is what the plaintiff wants in the present suit. Whether a person is an employee employed for wages in or in connection with the work of a factory or establishment to which the Act applies, or whether any person is liable to pay the contribution of that employee, a question within the exclusive domain of the Employees' Insurance Court. I don't think any further argument is needed to hold that civil court has no jurisdiction to grant a declaration that a factory or establishment is not covered under the provisions of the Act or that, that factory or establishment cannot be proceeded against under the provisions of the Act as otherwise it will be paralysing the whole working of the Act and the scheme framed there under. I may note in Dhulabhai etc. v. State of Madhya Pradesh and Am. : [1968]3SCR662 the Supreme Court set out various principles regarding the exclusion of jurisdiction of a civil court. It is unnecessary to burden this judgment by setting out those principles. Suffice to say that applying those principles jurisdiction of civil court is excluded in the present case.
(7) If the contention of the appellant is correct that he is only having eighteen employees, then the provisions of the Act will not apply to his establishment and the employees will not be covered within the definition of 'employee' and as noted above the question as to whether any person is an employee within the meaning of the Act is within the exclusive jurisdiction of the Employees' Insurance Court. An appeal against the order of the Employees' Insurance Court lies to the High Court, if it involves a substantial question of law, otherwise the decision of the Employees' Insurance Court is final for all intent and purposes. Under sub-section (3) of Section 75 there is an express bar of jurisdiction of a civil, court. Complete machinery is provided in the Act for redressing the grievance of any person The Act creates a special right or a liability and provides for the determination of that right or liability and further lays down that questions about the said right and liability shall be determined by the Employees' Insurance Court so constituted under Section 74 of the Act. Thus adequate remedy exists in the Act. Insurance Court can do what a civil court would normally do in a suit of the like nature. In this view that Employees' Insurance Court would have exclusive jurisdiction to determine the dispute as to whether a particular establishment is a factory or not within the meaning of the Act, I get support from a decision of the Bombay High Court (Masodkar, J) in Employees' State Insurance Corporation v. M/s R.P. Gundu and another 1983 Lab. I.C. 1634
(8) This appeal, thereforee, fails and is dismissed with costs.