JUDGMENT
1. The above write petition has been filed seeking for the issue of a writ of certiorari and call for the records, connected with E.I.O.P.S.R. No. 40628 of 1987 on the file of the first respondent herein, the first Additional City Civil Court. Madras (Employees’ Insurance Court) dated August 3, 1987, and to quash the same.
2. Heard learned counsel appearing on either side. The petitioner-company is having a mill at Cholapuram Rajapalayam, in Kamarajar District and has been said to have engaged apprentices in their mill under a scheme to train apprentices which nil scheme is claimed to have been in effect from March, 1985. It is also said that the mill is governed by its standing orders made and certified under the Industrial Employment Standing Orders Act which is claimed to have permitted the engagement of apprentices. It is also stated that such apprentices have been taken for the purposes of training without any right of recruitment and were being given training on various aspects of the textile mill so as to enable them to secure employment elsewhere. In such circumstances, the petitioner appears to have received a letter from the second respondent dated April 24, 1986, pointing out the fact that 89 apprentices engaged by the petitioner from March 21, 1985, should be registered immediately, under the Employees’ State Insurance Act, 1948 (hereinafter referred to as “the Act”), since they were not covered by the Apprentices Act or sponsored by the State or the Central Government. The petitioner was said to have submitted a reply on June 4, 1986. pointing out that the apprentices engaged under the said scheme could not be said to be its employees within the meaning of the Act irrespective of the fact whether they were covered by the Apprentices Act or sponsored by the State or the Central Government. Thereupon, the petitioner appears to have begin served with a letter dated December 16, 1986, calling on them to cover the said apprentices under the Act and also honour a demand for the remittance of Rs. 4,561.55. Aggrieved, the petitioner-company filed a petition under section 75 of the Act before the Employees’ Insurance Court which in this case has been filed before the City Civil Court, Madras. The registry of the City, Civil Court appears to have pointed out in an office note that the petitioner is carrying on the business at Cholapuram, Rajapalayam in Kamarajar District, that the City Civil Court in Madras has been constituted under section 74 of the Act for the local areas mentioned in G.O. No. 1969. Labour, dated April 6, 1965, and that, therefore, the petitioner may state as to how it is claimed that the City Civil Court, Madras, exercises jurisdiction as the Employees’ Insurance Court in this matter. The petitioner has returned the matter stating that since the respondent-Corporation’s office is within the local limits of the court in question, the said court has got jurisdiction. The presiding officer of the court in question has ordered the same to be called in court and the court after hearing the matter ordered that the objection raised by the office note is correct and the petition was, therefore, returned to the petitioner for presentation to the proper court having jurisdiction to entertain the same, by his order dated August 3, 1987. Aggrieved by the above, the writ petition has been filed.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that apart from the fact that the respondent-Corporation which initiated the proceedings is having its office within the limits of the first respondent court, the dispute relating to the liability of the petitioner to register the apprentices for the purposes of the Act and demanding the contribution arose in Madras wherefrom the notices emanated and that the objections were also heard by the office of the second respondent-Corporation at Madras and that, therefore, the order passed by the first respondent court is contrary to law and the same is liable to be set aside and the first respondent court must be directed to entertain the matter and proceed with further course of action.
4. Mr. G. Desappan, learned counsel for the second respondent-Corporation, has invited my attention to the counter-affidavit filed in the matter. In the counter-affidavit, it is seen that contentious claims have been made on the merits of the dispute itself. About the legality and the propriety of the action taken by the Corporation, the claims made by the petitioner have been repudiated by the second respondent-Corporation. In my view, those claims and issues have no relevance at this point of time and stage of the proceedings wherein the issue is about the propriety of the institution or the court before which the proceedings under section, 75 of the Act have to be instituted by the persons aggrieved. So far as this aspect of the dispute is concerned, it is contended in para 10 of the counter-affidavit that the Employees’ Insurance Courts have been set up in various districts and there is an Employees’ Insurance Court for the district of Ramanathapuram and that the petitioner ought to have obeyed the orders of the court which directed the petitioner to approach the appropriate court.
5. Learned counsel appearing on either side reiterated the stand taken by their respective parties as noticed from die pleadings referred to supra. I have carefully considered the submissions of learned counsel on either side in the light of the relevant provisions governing the matter in issue.
6. Section 74 of the Act which provides for the constitution of Employees’ Insurance Court, reads as follows :
“74. Constitution of Employees’ Insurance Court. – (1) The State Government shall, by notification in the Official Gazette, constitute an Employees’ Insurance Court of such local area as may be specified in the notification.
(2) The court shall consist of such number of judges as the State Government may think fit.
(3) Any person who is or has been a Judicial officer or is a legal practitioner of five years’ standing shall be qualified to be a judge of the Employees’ Insurance Court.
(4) The State Government may appoint the same court for two or more local areas or two or more courts for the same local area.
(5) Where more than one court has been appointed for the same local area, the State Government may, by general or special order, regulate the distribution of business between them.”
7. Section 75 provides that if any question or dispute arises as to the various matters illustrated therein such questions and disputes shall be decided by, the Employees Insurance Court in accordance with the provisions of the Act. Section 77 provides that the proceedings before the Employees’ Insurance Court shall be commenced by an application and that every such application shall be made within a period of three years from the date on which the cause of action arose. Section 76 which calls for consideration in this case, provides for the institution of the proceedings, etc., and reads as follows :
“76. Institution of proceedings, etc. – (1) Subject to the provisions of this Act and any, rules made by the State Government, all proceedings before the Employees Insurance Court shall be instituted in the court appointed for local area in which the insured person was working at the time the question or dispute arose.
(2) If the court is satisfied that any matter arising out of any proceedings pending before it can be more conveniently dealt with by any other Employees’ Insurance Court in the same State. It may, subject to any rules made by the State Government in this behalf order such matter to be transferred to such other court for disposal and shall forthwith transmit to such other court the records connected with that matter.
(3) The State Government may transfer any matter pending before an Employees’ Insurance Court in the State to any such court in another State with the consent of the State Government of that State.
(4) court to which any matter is transferred under subsection (2) or sub-section (3) shall continue the proceedings as if they had been originally instituted in it.”
8. The provision of sub-section (1) of section 76 says that the proceedings before the Employees’ Insurance Court shall be instituted in the court appointed for the local area in which the insured person was working at the time the question or dispute arose. The provisions of sub-section (2) of section 76 provides that if the court is satisfied that any matter arising out of any proceedings pending before it can be more conveniently dealt with by any other Employees’ Insurance Court in the same State, subject to any rules made by the State Government, the court before whom It was instituted may order transfer of such matter pending before it for disposal and transmit the matter to such other court, the records connected with that matter. The State Government is also empowered to transfer any matter pending before any Employees’ Insurance Court in the State to any such court in any other state with the consent of the State Government of that State. A careful reading of the above provisions discloses that the section does give more than sufficient indication about the court before which proceedings have to be instituted, at the first instance and there are provisions made under the section to enable a transfer only by such court to some other court for further proceedings and disposal. The criteria to identify such court or essential requisite which has been laid down in section 76(1) relating to the institution of the proceedings under the Act, is that it should be in the court appointed for the local area in which the insured person was working at the time the question or dispute arose. Even a cursory reading of the provisions would go to show that it is neither the location of the respondent-Corporation nor the residence of the person who initiated the proceedings giving room for the dispute to be raised or even the place where the question or dispute was said to have arisen that are relevant or material to decide the court before which the proceedings have to be instituted. As per the provisions of the section proceedings should be instituted in the court appointed for the local area in which the insured person was working at the time when the question or dispute arose. In the instant case, there can be no controversy over the position that the apprentices who are sought to be registered under the Act by the respondent-Corporation are or were engaged for being trained on various aspects of the textile mill so as to enable them to secure employment elsewhere and such training was being offered by the petitioner to them in the premises of their mills at Cholapuram. Rajapalayam in Kwnarajar District. The normal concept of principles governing the institution of proceedings under the Code of Civil Procedure has no application to the institution of proceedings under the special court not under constitution. In view of the above no exception can be taken to the order of the first respondent returning the application filed by the petitioner herein, for being presented before the appropriate court, in terms of section 76(1) of the Act. The contentions to the contrary on behalf of the petitioners, for the reasons stated already, do not merit acceptance. The writ petition, therefore, fails and shall stand dismissed.
9. The office is directed to return the original petition filed by the petitioner into this court when the writ petition has been filed to enable the petitioner to present it before the appropriate court. However, the petitioner, if presents the papers returned by the registry of this court with a copy of this order within four weeks before the competent Employees’ Insurance Court provided for the local area, such court shall entertain the same without raising any, objection relating to the limitation and shall proceed to consider the matter on merits and according to law after observing the due and prescribed formalities by sending notices to the other side and after hearing both sides. With the directions given supra, the writ petition shall stand dismissed.
10. No costs.