75 Matters to be decided by Employees' Insurance Court

Matters to be decided by Employees' Insurance Court.

75. (1) If any question or dispute arises as to--

(a) whether any person is an employee within the meaning of this Act or whether he is liable to pay the employee's contribution, or

(b) the rate of wages or average daily wages of an employee for the purposes of this Act, or

(c) the rate of contribution payable by a principal employer in respect of any employee, or

(d) the person who is or was the principal employer in respect of any employee, or

(e) the right of any person to any benefit and as to the amount and duration thereof, or

(ee) any direction issued by the Corporation under section 55A on a review of any payment of dependant's benefits, or

[* * *]

(g) any other matter which is in dispute between a principal employer and the Corporation, or between a principal employer and an immediate employer or between a person and the Corporation or between an employee and a principal or immediate employer, in respect of any contribution or benefit or other dues payable or recoverable under this Act, or any other matter required to be or which may be decided by the Employees' Insurance Court under this Act,

such question or dispute subject to the provisions of sub-section (2A) shall be decided by the Employees' Insurance Court in accordance with the provisions of this Act.

(2) Subject to the provisions of sub-section (2A), the following claims shall be decided by the Employees' Insurance Court, namely:--

(a) claim for the recovery of contributions from the principal employer;

(b) claim by a principal employer to recover contributions from any immediate employer;

[* * * * *];

(d) claim against a principal employer under section 68;

(e) claim under section 70 for the recovery of the value or amount of the benefits received by a person when he is not lawfully entitled thereto; and

(f) any claim for the recovery of any benefit admissible under this Act.

(2A) If in any proceedings before the Employees' Insurance Court a disablement question arises and the decision of a medical board or a medical appeal tribunal has not been obtained on the same and the decision of such question is necessary for the determination of the claim or question before the Employees' Insurance Court, that Court shall direct the Corporation to have the question decided by this Act and shall thereafter proceed with the determination of the claim or question before it in accordance with the decision of the medical board or the medical appeal tribunal, as the case may be, except where an appeal has been filed before the Employees' Insurance Court under sub-section (2) of section 54A in which case the Employees' Insurance Court may itself determine all the issues arising before it.

(2B) 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.

(3) No Civil Court shall have jurisdiction to decide or deal with any question or dispute as aforesaid or to adjudicate on any liability which by or under this Act is to be decided by a medical board, or by a medical appeal tribunal or by the Employees' Insurance Court.

COMMENTS

Where there is the filing of a suit after the payment of court fee, the suit at that stage cannot be dismissed without considering and deciding an issue as regards the sustainability of a statutory bar which the defendant may raise.-- P. Asokan v. Western Indian Plywood Ltd. 1987 (1) LLJ 182.

It is within the power of the tribunal to correct the mistakes or even set aside the ex parte orders. Such inherent powers must be vested in the authority, otherwise it would not be in a position to exercise its judicial or quasi-judicial functions in a proper manner so that the cause of justice is advanced.-- Modi Steel Unit v. ESI Corporation 1989 (59) FLR 176.

It is not for the Corporation to dismiss the claim on the ground of limitation that the claim for benefit was not in accordance with the regulation made in that behalf within a period of 12 months after the claim became due.-- Radhey Shyam Chintamani v. ESI Corporation, 1989 (1) LLN 931.