TMI Blog1984 (3) TMI 442X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... einafter called the company), was called upon by the Regional Director, Employees' State Insurance Corporation, Chandigarh, to pay ₹ 6,026.58 toward the arrears of contributions. The company filed an application under S. 75 of the Employees' State Insurance Act (hereinafter called the Act) before the Employees' Insurance Court to challenge the notice of recovery on the grounds th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... , it was held that in view of B.M. Chatterjee v. State of West Bengal A.I.R. 1970 Cal. 290, a director of the limited company was a principal employer within the meaning of S. 2(17) of the Act and, therefore, whatever payments were made to the directors, could not be considered as the subject-matter for assessing the contribution. To that limited extent, the matter was decided in favour of the c ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... o evidence on the record to come to the conclusion that arrears claimed by the Corporation had been paid. Moreover, this is a question of fact and this Court has no jurisdiction to go into the same because the jurisdiction of this Court is to decide substantial questions of law. 5. Learned counsel for the company has failed to show as to what is the limitation for asking for the contributions, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
