1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL JURISDICTION FIRST APPEAL NO.739 OF 2006 WITH CIVIL APPLICATION NO.3470 OF 2009 Employees State Insurance Corporation, (Sub-Regional Office) Panchdeep Bhavan, 689-90 Bibvewadi, Pune- 37 ...Appellant. v. M/s. Litika Pharmaceuticals Limited B-22, “H” Block, M.I.D.C., Pimpri, Pune 411 017 ...Respondents. Mr.P.M.Palshikar i/by M/s. M.V.Jayakar & Co. adv. For the Appellant. Mr. A.D. Patwardhan with T.R.Yadav, advs. For the Respondents. CORAM : J.H. BHATIA, J. DATED : 29th August , 2009 Oral Judgment: 1 This appeal is admitted on the following substantial questions of law in grounds (a), (b) and (c), which are as follows: “(a) Whether the contribution sought to be recovered from the defaulting employer under Section 45-A amounts to “claim” under Section 77(1A)(b) of the said Act . (b) Whether the limitation under section 77(1A) (b) of the said Act applies even if no application is made by the Appellant under Section 75 of the said Act. (c) Whether the request for compliance dated 2 2.12.1999 amounts to claim made for the first time as contemplated by Section 77(1A) (b) of the said Act. “ The main question is whether the claim made by the appellant under Section 45-A of the Employees State Insurance Corporation Act is within the limitation or not. 2 Heard the learned counsel for the Parties. 3 The appellant had issued notice to the respondent claiming contribution for the period from 1993-98. The Notice was issued on 5.4.2001. The Judge, Employees Insurance Court, Pune held that the claim from 1996-98 was within limitation but the claim for the earlier period was barred by the limitation as it was beyond five years. Against that part of the order, appeal has been preferred before this Court. It may be noted that about the order for the April, 1996-98 , the appeal was preferred by the respondent but that appeal has been already withdrawn. The learned counsel for both the sides concede that in the case of Employees State Insurance Corporation v. C.C.Santha Kumar 2007 III CLR 267, the Supreme Court held that period of limitation prescribed under the provisions of Clause (b) of Section 77(1-A) of the Act can not be applied to the order under Section 45A of the Act. However, the Supreme Court held that action has to be taken by the 3 Corporation within reasonable time. Relying upon the said authority, the learned Single Judge of this Court in Regional Director, Employees State Insurance Corporation, Mumbai vs. M/s. Precimax Engineers Ltd. 2008 I CLR 544 allowed the appeal filed by the Corporation and set aside the order of the trial Court, which was passed on the question of limitation. The present appeal is squarely covered by the view taken by the Supreme Court in C.C.Santha Kumar (Supra). Therefore, the impugned order holding that the claim for the period prior to April, 1996 is barred by the limitation is hereby set aside . Matter is remanded back to the Employees Insurance Court, Pune to determine the actual amount of contribution due from respondent for the period prior to April, 1996. Parties shall appear before the Employees Insurance Court on 17th September, 2009. Parties to act on an authenticated copy of this order. 4 Appeal stands disposed off accordingly. 5 As the appeal itself is disposed off finally, Civil Application No.3470 of 2009 does not survive and stands disposed off accordingly. (J.H. BHATIA,J.)