Limitation for Employees' State Insurance applications could not be created by rule; Article 137 later governed filings.

Rule 17 of the Employees' State Insurance Rules was held ultra vires because the State Government's power under Section 96(1)(b) extended only to procedure in pending proceedings, not to prescribing a limitation period for instituting original applications. The Court further held that no limitation applied to Corporation applications before 1 January 1964, as the Indian Limitation Act, 1908 contained no applicable period and Article 181 was confined to Code of Civil Procedure applications. From 1 January 1964, Article 137 of the Limitation Act, 1963 governed such applications, because no specific period was provided elsewhere in the Act.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether Rule 17 of the Employees' State Insurance Rules was within the State Government's rule-making power under Section 96(1)(b) of the Employees' State Insurance Act, 1948. (ii) If Rule 17 was invalid, whether applications by the Corporation before an Employees' Insurance Court were governed by any limitation period, and if so, what period applied before and after 1 January 1964.

Issue (i): Whether Rule 17 of the Employees' State Insurance Rules was within the State Government's rule-making power under Section 96(1)(b) of the Employees' State Insurance Act, 1948.

Analysis: The expression "the procedure to be followed in proceedings before such Courts" was held to refer to procedure after institution of proceedings and not to provisions governing the filing of an original application. A rule prescribing a limitation period for commencing proceedings operates at a stage anterior to the proceeding itself and therefore does not form part of the procedure to be followed in proceedings. The broader scheme of the Act, including the distinct treatment of institution, commencement, procedure, and limitation in different provisions, also supported this construction. The Court further held that the fact that limitation is generally procedural does not make every rule of limitation part of procedural rules under Section 96(1)(b).

Conclusion: Rule 17 was ultra vires the rule-making power of the State Government under Section 96(1)(b).

Issue (ii): If Rule 17 was invalid, whether applications by the Corporation before an Employees' Insurance Court were governed by any limitation period, and if so, what period applied before and after 1 January 1964.

Analysis: Before 1 January 1964, the Indian Limitation Act, 1908 did not provide any limitation period applicable to such applications, and Article 181 was inapplicable because it was confined to applications under the Code of Civil Procedure. From 1 January 1964, Article 137 of the Limitation Act, 1963 applied to applications for which no specific period of limitation was provided elsewhere in the Act, and therefore governed these applications from that date onward. The legislative scheme and express provisions on limitation in other parts of the Act indicated that no different limitation period was intended to be left to State rule-making.

Conclusion: Applications filed by the Corporation before 1 January 1964 were not subject to any limitation period, while applications filed thereafter were governed by Article 137 of the Limitation Act, 1963.

Final Conclusion: The impugned rule was struck down, and the governing limitation position was settled by reference to the applicable limitation law rather than State-made rules.

Ratio Decidendi: A State rule-making power limited to procedure in pending proceedings does not authorise the prescription of a limitation period for instituting original proceedings unless such power is clearly conferred by the statute.

---