M/s. Sahni Silk Mills (P) Ltd. and anr. etc. etc. Vs. Employees State Insurance Corporation
EmailAppeal: Civil Appeal Nos. 2971-2974 of 1989
Petitioner: M/s. Sahni Silk Mills (P) Ltd. and anr. etc. etc.
Respondent: Employees State Insurance Corporation
Apeal: Civil Appeal Nos. 2971-2974 of 1989
Judges: LALIT MOHAN SHARMA, CJI. & N. VENKATACHALA, JJ.
Date of Judgment: Feb 02, 1993
Head Note:
SERVICE AND LABOUR LAW
Employees’ State Insurance Act, 1948:
Section 94 – Delegation of powers – Double delegation – Whether the very power of delegation of all or any of its powers or functions under the Act by the Corporation conferred under section 94A on any officer or authority subordinate thereto could be delegated to such officer or authority? – Question referred to a Bench of three Judges.
Cases Reffered:
1. Bombay Municipal Corporation v. Dhondu Naraya Chowdhary, 1965 (2) SCR 929. (Para 5)
2. Manindra Nath v. Anil Chandra and others, AIR 1953 Cal. 689. (Para 5)
2. Manindra Nath v. Anil Chandra and others, AIR 1953 Cal. 689. (Para 5)
Books and Articles Referred:
Halsbury’s Laws of England, 4th Edition, Vol.1, para 2. (Para 5)
JUDGEMENT:
O R D E R
1. These appeals arise out of a proceeding under Employees State Insurance Act. An order under Section 85B of the Act was passed against the appellants by the Regional Director, Chandigarh imposing damages assessed at over Rs. 15,000/-, on the ground that the appellants had defaulted in depositing in time the employers contribution under Section 40 of the Act. The amount was reduced to Rs.9,226/- on an application being moved under Section 75G. The appellants challenged the order by filing a writ petition before the High Court, which has been dismissed in limine by the order under appeal.
2. One of the grounds urged on behalf of the appellants is that the Regional Director was not empowered to pass the impugned order under Section 85B as the jurisdiction in this regard vests in the Employees State Insurance Corporation and not in the Regional Director.
3. Section 94A of the Act permits the Corporation to delegate the powers exercisable by it to any of its officers. Admittedly the Corporation had delegated the powers exercisable by it to the Director General or any officer authorised by him. Purporting to act under this resolution the Regional Director, who has been authorised by the Director General to exercise powers under the ACt, has passed the order.
4. The contention is that the Director General could not have further delegated his powers to the Regional Director, as that would amount to double delegation, which is forbidden in law. In reply the learned counsel has relied upon the decisions reported in 1981 LIC 658, 1987 (1) K.L.T. 825, 1966 (Suppl.) SCR 311 and 1955 SCR 380.
5. In Bombay Municipal Corporation v. Dhondu Naraya Chowdhary : 1965 (2) SCR 929, it was held that double delegation was permissible if allowed by the Statute. The decision in Manindra Nath v. Anil Chandra and others: AIR 1953 Calcutta 689, and the discussion in Halsbury’s Laws of England, Fourth Edition, Vol. 1, para 32, were also placed before us by the learned counsel.
6. Section 94A empowers Corporation to delegate all or any of its powers and functions on any officer or authority subordinate to it. The very power of delegation of all or any of its powers or functions under the Act by the Corporation conferred under section 94A thereof on any officer or authority subordinate thereto could have been delegated to such officer or authority is, therefore, the question which arises for our consideration. Having regard to the general importance of this question we are of the opinion that the same may be decided by a Bench of three Judges of this Court. Let the case be listed for hearing accordingly.
1. These appeals arise out of a proceeding under Employees State Insurance Act. An order under Section 85B of the Act was passed against the appellants by the Regional Director, Chandigarh imposing damages assessed at over Rs. 15,000/-, on the ground that the appellants had defaulted in depositing in time the employers contribution under Section 40 of the Act. The amount was reduced to Rs.9,226/- on an application being moved under Section 75G. The appellants challenged the order by filing a writ petition before the High Court, which has been dismissed in limine by the order under appeal.
2. One of the grounds urged on behalf of the appellants is that the Regional Director was not empowered to pass the impugned order under Section 85B as the jurisdiction in this regard vests in the Employees State Insurance Corporation and not in the Regional Director.
3. Section 94A of the Act permits the Corporation to delegate the powers exercisable by it to any of its officers. Admittedly the Corporation had delegated the powers exercisable by it to the Director General or any officer authorised by him. Purporting to act under this resolution the Regional Director, who has been authorised by the Director General to exercise powers under the ACt, has passed the order.
4. The contention is that the Director General could not have further delegated his powers to the Regional Director, as that would amount to double delegation, which is forbidden in law. In reply the learned counsel has relied upon the decisions reported in 1981 LIC 658, 1987 (1) K.L.T. 825, 1966 (Suppl.) SCR 311 and 1955 SCR 380.
5. In Bombay Municipal Corporation v. Dhondu Naraya Chowdhary : 1965 (2) SCR 929, it was held that double delegation was permissible if allowed by the Statute. The decision in Manindra Nath v. Anil Chandra and others: AIR 1953 Calcutta 689, and the discussion in Halsbury’s Laws of England, Fourth Edition, Vol. 1, para 32, were also placed before us by the learned counsel.
6. Section 94A empowers Corporation to delegate all or any of its powers and functions on any officer or authority subordinate to it. The very power of delegation of all or any of its powers or functions under the Act by the Corporation conferred under section 94A thereof on any officer or authority subordinate thereto could have been delegated to such officer or authority is, therefore, the question which arises for our consideration. Having regard to the general importance of this question we are of the opinion that the same may be decided by a Bench of three Judges of this Court. Let the case be listed for hearing accordingly.
