Employees Insurance Court treated as a court for limitation purposes; Section 5 applies to restoration applications under the rules.

The Employees Insurance Court is treated as a court for Limitation Act purposes because it exercises judicial power, gives binding and final decisions, has powers akin to a civil court, and operates within a statutory scheme excluding ordinary civil court jurisdiction over assigned matters. On that basis, Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963 applies to restoration proceedings under Rule 26(5) of the Bombay Employees Insurance Court Rules, 1959. The 30-day restoration period under Rule 26(5) is consistent with Article 122, and in any event Section 29(2) permits Section 5 because the special law does not expressly exclude it.

---

---

Issues: Whether the Employees Insurance Court is a court for the purpose of Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963, and whether Section 5 applies to an application for setting aside dismissal and restoration under Rule 26(5) of the Bombay Employees Insurance Court Rules, 1959.

Analysis: The Court applied the settled tests for determining whether a tribunal is a court, namely, whether it exercises judicial power of the State and renders definitive, binding decisions with finality. On the scheme of the Employees State Insurance Act, 1948, the Employees Insurance Court was found to have statutory constitution, powers akin to a civil court, enforceable orders, an appeal to the High Court, and the exclusion of ordinary civil court jurisdiction over matters assigned to it. These features showed that it functioned as a court for practical purposes, including the application of the Limitation Act. The Court further held that Rule 26(5) prescribes a 30-day period for restoration, which is the same period as under Article 122 of the Limitation Act, 1963 for restoration after default, and in any event Section 29(2) applies because there was no express exclusion of Section 5 by the special law.

Conclusion: Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963 applies to an application under Rule 26(5) of the Bombay Employees Insurance Court Rules, 1959, and the restoration application was rightly entertained on sufficient cause being shown.

---