TMI Blog1994 (7) TMI 312X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ch have already been realised as damages from the employers concerned. However, if from some employers, the damages under Section 85-B(1), on the basis of orders passed by the Regional Directors between 3-5-1976 and 19-2-1983 have not yet been realised, they shall not be realised. In such cases, it will be open for the Regional Directors to issue fresh notices and assess and recover the damages, if any. - C.A. Nos. 2971-2974 of 1989 - - - Dated:- 14-7-1994 - N.P.SINGH, KULDIP SINGH AND P.B. SAWANT, JJ JUDGMENT The Judgment of the Court was delivered by N.P. SINGH, J.- The Regional Directors of the Employees' State Insurance Corporation (hereinafter referred to as 'the Corporation') issued notices under Section 85-B of the Employees' State Insurance Act, 1948 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') to the appellants between the years 1979 to 1981, stating that they proposed to impose damages against the appellants because there had been delay on the part of the appellants in making payment of the contribution, in accordance with the provisions of the said Act. Different amounts were mentioned in the said notices which were to be imposed, as damages against the different a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... as may be specified, be also exercisable by any officer or authority subordinate to the Corporation." 4. In the present case, the power of the Corporation to recover the damages under Section 85-B has not been questioned. The controversy is as to whether this power could have been delegated under Section 94-A aforesaid to the Regional Directors. It may be mentioned that in exercise of the power under Section 94-A the Corporation delegated its power to impose and recover damages from the employers by a resolution dated 28-2-1976. "Resolved that for purposes of levy of damages under Section 85-B(1) of the Employees' State Insurance Act, 1948, as amended up-to-date, the Director General or any other officer authorised by him may levy and recover damages from the employer/s not exceeding the rates as per Table annexed." (emphasis supplied) It was pointed out that when Section 94-A provides that the Corporation may direct that all or any of the powers and functions which may be exercised or performed by the Corporation may subject to such conditions, if any, as may be specified "be also exercisable by any officer or authority subordinate to the Corporation", the Corporation could ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Municipal Corporation had delegated his power and function under the aforesaid section to a Municipal Officer to launch proceedings against a person charged with offences under the Act or the rules and that officer to whom such functions were delegated could not further delegate the same to another. 8. In Halsbury's Laws of England, 4th Edn., Vol. 1, in respect of sub-delegation of powers it has been said: "In accordance with the maxim delegatus non protest delegate, a statutory power must be exercised only by the body or officer in whom it has been confided, (H. Lavender Son Ltd. v. Minister of Housing and Local Government (1970) 3 All ER 871 :(1970) 1 WLR 1231 unless sub-delegation of the power is authorised by express words or necessary implication (Customs and Excise Comrs. v. Cure and Deeley Ltd. (1962) 1 QB 340: (1961) 3 All ER 641 : (1961) 3 WLR 798 and Mungoni v. Attorney General of Northern Rhodesia (1960) 1 All ER 446: (1960) 2 WLR 389: 1960 AC 336. There is a strong presumption against construing a grant of legislative, judicial, or disciplinary power as impliedly authorising sub-delegation; and the same may be said of any power to the exercise of PC which the des ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ct that particular or any of the powers and functions which may be exercised or performed by the Corporation, may in relation to such matters and subject to such conditions, if any, as may be specified "be also exercisable by any officer or authority, subordinate to the Corporation". Section 94-A does not specifically provide that any officer or authority subordinate to the Corporation to whom the power has been delegated by the Corporation, may in his turn authorise any other officer to exercise or perform that power or function. But by the resolution dated 28-2-1976 the Corporation has not only delegated its power under Section 85-B(1) of the Act to the Director General, but has also empowered the Director General to authorise any other officer to exercise the said power. Unless it is held that Section 94-A of the Act, enables the Corporation to delegate any of its powers and functions to any officer or authority subordinate to the Corporation, and he in his turn can sub-delegate the exercise of the said power to any other officer, the last part of the resolution dated 28-2-1976 cannot be held to be within the framework of Section 94-A. According to us, Parliament while introduci ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ty by a statute. The basic h principle behind the aforesaid maxim is that "a discretion conferred by statute is prima facie intended to be exercised by the authority on which the statute has conferred it and by no other authority, but this intention may be negatived by any contrary indications found in the language, scope or object of the statute". (Vide John Willis, "Delegatus non protest delegate, (1943) 21 Can. Bar Rev. 257, 259)". 13. It cannot be disputed that by the impugned resolution dated 28-2-1976 the Corporation not only delegated its power under Section 85-B(1) of the Act to the Director General, but also left it to the Director General to authorise any other officer to exercise the power under Section 85-B(1). From Section 94-A it does not appear that Parliament vested power in the Corporation to delegate its power on any officer or authority subordinate to. the Corporation, and also vested power in the Corporation to empower such officer or authority, to authorise any other officer to exercise the said power under Section 85-B(1). If Section 94-A had a provision enabling the Corporation. not only to delegate its power to any other officer or authority subordinate to ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s. That exercise of power had been upheld by a Full Bench of Patna High Court and a Division Bench of the Punjab and Haryana High Court referred to above. In this background, it be improper to declare all such actions taken by the different Regional Directors as invalid. The Corporation has itself, later by its resolution dated 19-2-1983 superseded and recalled the aforesaid resolution dated 28-2-1976. As such, any exercise of power by the Regional Directors on and from 19-2-1983 cannot be questioned. The disputed period is only between 28-2-1976 and 19-2-1983. According to us, it will not be proper for this Court to upset and unsettle the settled position at this late stage. Nor is it in public interest to do so. The orders passed are in no way erroneous on merits. Taking all facts and circumstances into consideration, we direct that no actions or proceedings shall be entertained for refund of amounts which have already been realised as damages from the employers concerned. However, if from some employers, the damages under Section 85-B(1), on the basis of orders passed by the Regional Directors between 3-5-1976 and 19-2-1983 have not yet been realised, they shall not be realised. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
