Arul Theatre and Others vs Regional Director, Employees' State Insurance Corporation

Ratnam, J.—This civil revision petition is directed against the order of the learned District Judge, Coimbatore, in I.A. No. 371 of 1983 in

Pro. No. 15 of 1981, on his file. The main proceeding was initiated by one Arul Theatre represented by one Muthu for a declaration that Arul

Theatre is not an establishment coming within the purview of the notification in G.O. Ms. No. 1088, dated 22nd January, 1976. During the

pendency of that proceeding, Muthu, died on 28th December, 1981. The Petitioners, who are the wife and children of the deceased Muthu filed

I.A. No. 371 of 1983 on 15th February, 1983, under Order 22, Rule 3 and Section 151, Civil Procedure Code, praying that they should be

impleaded as the legal representatives of deceased Muthu in the proceedings. That application was opposed by the Respondent herein on the

ground that not even the date of death of Muthu had been disclosed and that having regard to his death which took place on 28th December,

1981, the application to bring on record the legal representatives filed on 16th February, 1983, was barred. The learned District Judge upheld this

objection of the Respondent and dismissed the application to bring on record the Petitioners as the legal representatives of the deceased Muthu, as

barred by time. It is the correctness of this order that is challenged in this civil revision petition.

The contention of the Learned Counsel for the Petitioners is that to the proceedings initiated under the Employees'' State Insurance Act, 1948

(34 of 1948) the provisions of the CPC would be inapplicable and therefore, the application to bring on record the Petitioners as the legal

representatives of the deceased Muthu filed on 16th February, 1983, can be entertained and ordered as well. On the other hand, the Learned

Counsel for the Respondent drew attention to Rule 47 framed by the Tamil Nadu Government in the exercise of powers u/s 96 to the effect that

with reference to matters relating to procedure for which no specific provision is made, the provisions of the Civil Procedure Code, would apply so

far as may be and Order 22, Rule 3, CPC and Article 120 of the Limitation Act, would apply and therefore, any application made to bring on

record the legal representatives of the deceased party beyond 90 days from the date of the death of the party, would be barred.

Section 78 of the Employees'' State Insurance Act enumerates only some of the powers of the civil court and that is confined to the summoning

and enforcing the attendance of witnesses and compelling the discovery as well as the production of the documents, but that is by no means

exhaustive. With reference to the procedure to be followed before the courts, Section 96(b) of the Employees'' State Insurance Act enables the

State Government to make rules. Pursuant to that, in G.O. Ms. No. 3143, Development, dated 9th July, 1951, rules have been framed and Rule

47 which is relevant for this case runs as under:

In respect of matters relating to procedure or admission of evidence for which no specific provision is made in these rules, the provisions of the

Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, (V of 1908), including the rules thereunder and the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, (I of 1872) shall, so far as may

be, apply to proceedings under the Act.

In view of Rule 47, it is obvious that Order 22, Rule 3 and Article 120 of the Limitation Act would stand attracted and that would mean that an

application to bring on record the legal representatives of the deceased party has to be made within 90 days from the date of the death. Indeed, it

is seen that the Petitioners themselves invoked Order 22, Rule 3 and Section 151, Civil Procedure Code. In this case, Muthu died on 28th

December, 1981 and the application to bring on record the legal representatives had been made only on 16th February, 1983. There was no

application even before the court below for condoning the delay in filing the application beyond 90 days. Under those circumstances, the court

below was in order in having rejected the application filed by the Petitioners as barred by time in accordance with Section 3 of the Limitation Act.

There is no illegality or irregularity in the order of the court below which merits interference. The civil revision petition is therefore dismissed with

costs.