Rule-making power cannot create limitation periods where the enabling Act authorises only procedural rules.

Rule 17 of the Madras Employees' Insurance Court Rules, 1951, was held to go beyond the rule-making power under Section 96(b) of the Employees' State Insurance Act, 1948, because that provision authorised rules on procedure before the Courts and execution of orders, not the creation of a limitation period. In the absence of any express or necessarily implied power to prescribe limitation, the State could not use delegated legislation to supply that gap. The rule was therefore ultra vires, and the application was not barred by limitation.

---

---

Issues: Whether Rule 17 of the Madras Employees' Insurance Court Rules, 1951, prescribing limitation for proceedings under the Employees' State Insurance Act, 1948, was within the rule-making power conferred by Section 96(b) of the Act.

Analysis: The Act did not itself provide for limitation in the relevant context. Section 96(b) authorised rules only as to procedure before the Courts and execution of orders, and did not expressly or by necessary implication confer power to prescribe a period of limitation. The absence of any reference to limitation in the enabling provision, together with the scheme of legislative delegation and the distinction between procedural rule-making and prescribing limitation, showed that the State could not fill the gap by rule-making. The rule was therefore beyond the delegated power.

Conclusion: Rule 17 was ultra vires the State's rule-making power, and the application was not time-barred.

---