JUDGMENT : S.C. Mohapatra, J. - This is an appeal by the employer u/s 82(2) of the Employees' State Insurance Act, 1948 (for short 'the Act' hereinafter). 2. Prajatantra Prachar Samiti (hereinafter referred to as 'the employer') is a registered society under the Societies Registration Act. It owns a Press where the newspaper and periodical magazines are published by it and printed, apart from undertaking profiting job for others. There is no dispute that in respect of the employees of the Press, the employer was paying contribution under the Act excluding the employees in connection with the newspaper and periodicals. When the statutory authority under the Act (hereinafter referred to as 'the Corporation') demanded contribution from the employer in respect of the employees in connection with the newspaper and the periodicals, the employer resisted the same but to no effect. On the basis of the demands purported to have been made u/s 45-A of the Act, recovery proceedings were initiated under the Orissa Public Demands Recovery Act, 1963, as arrears of land revenue in accordance with Section 45-A(2) of the Act for the period between 1968 and 9-11-1976. The employer contested the claims before the certificate authorities on the ground that its employees in connection with the newspaper and periodicals do not come within the purview of the Act and the Corporation has no jurisdiction to make the demand, In respect of some demands, the employer became successful before the Certificate Officer and in respect of other demands the Corporation became successful. Both agitated their grievances in appeal. The Certificate Appellate Authority held that the dispute is to be resolved as provided u/s 75 in the Insurance Court constituted under the Act. Thereupon, the employer filed an application in the Insurance Court on 20th June, 1979, as required u/s 77(1) of the Act. The Insurance Court while coming to the conclusion that the Act was not attracted to the employees in connection with the newspaper and periodicals till 9-11-1976, held that the application was barred by limitation u/s 77(1A) of the Act. Aggrieved by the said order, the employer has approached this Court in appeal. 3. u/s 82 of the Act an appeal is to be confined to a substantial question of law. The learned Counsel for the Appellant submitted that the question whether the application before the Insurance Court is barred by limitation is a substantial question of law. Aggrieved by the said order, the employer has approached this Court in appeal. 3. u/s 82 of the Act an appeal is to be confined to a substantial question of law. The learned Counsel for the Appellant submitted that the question whether the application before the Insurance Court is barred by limitation is a substantial question of law. Meaning of substantial question of law depends upon the scheme of the State in which it is used and may vary from one statute to the other. While considering the meaning of the term used in Section 30 of the Workmen's Compensation Act, this Court held that a wider meaning than the one in section no, Code of Civil Procedure, is to be given to the term. See The Central Engineering Corporation v. Dorai Raj ILR 1959 Cutt. 464. The same meaning is to be given to the term in the present statute and accordingly, on the facts of this case, the question of limitation is a substantial question of law. 4. In order to consider the question of limitation, Section 77(1A) of the Act is to be kept in mind. It reads as follows: 77. Commencement of proceedings: (1) .... (1A) Every such application shall be made within a period of three years from the date on which the cause of action arose. Explanation.-For the purpose of this Sub-section: (a) the cause of action in respect of a claim for benefit shall not be deemed to arise unless the insured person or in the case of dependant's benefit, dependants of the insured person claims or claim that benefit in accordance with the regulations made in that behalf within a period of twelve months after the claim became due or within such further period as the Employees' Insurance Court may allow on grounds which appear to it to be reasonable; (b) the cause of action in respect of a claim by the Corporation for recovering contributions from the principal employer or a claim by the principal employer for recovering contributions from an immediate employer shall not be deemed to arise till the date by which the evidence of contributions having been paid is due to be received by the Corporation under the regulations. (2) .... The clear language of Sub-section (1A) indicates that the limitation is to be copulated from the date on which the cause of action arises. (2) .... The clear language of Sub-section (1A) indicates that the limitation is to be copulated from the date on which the cause of action arises. Although the explanations to the Sub-section provide the instances where cause of action shall be deemed not to arise, there is nothing in the language to indicate that the cause of action would arise where the deeming provision does not apply. 5. As authority under the statute is to act not only within the limitations provided under the statute but also in the manner provided therein. Where the pre-conditions for exercise of the power are not satisfied, the order of the statutory authority in exercise of that power is void. A void order is not required to be avoided by approaching any authority. It can be ignored. Where on the basis of a void order action is initiated, the cause of action arises on each occasion the threat is perpetuated and the limitation u/s 77(1A) shall begin to run on each occasion the person is threatened. This would be the plain meaning of Sub-section (1A) of Section 77 of the Act. 6. In our Constitution, arbitrary actions are shunned. Statutory authorities are not only to act fairly, but also to give an appearance of fairness in their actions to create confidence of the people in the due observance of Rule of Law. There is no prohibition u/s 75 or Section 77 of the Act for the Corporation to get any dispute resolved in the Insurance Court. Where an, employer challenges the jurisdiction of the Corporation to demand the contribution, the Corporation ought to approach the Insurance Court to get the dispute resolved before initiating recovery proceedings. The delay in realisation of the contribution on account of approaching the Insurance Court would be less prejudicial than the loss of confidence in the observance of Rule of Law or feeling of arbitrary action by the statutory authorities. Where the Corporation does not observe this salutary principle and proceeds to realise the contribution by coercive process of recovery in certificate proceeding on the basis of an order without jurisdiction, the employer can contest the same in the certificate proceeding and in case of failure, make an application to the Insurance Court for resolving the dispute. It would be a continuing cause of action. 7. It would be a continuing cause of action. 7. On the finding of the Insurance Court that the Corporation had no jurisdiction to demand the contribution for the period between 1968 and 9-11-1976, I would have no hesitation to hold that the application is not barred by limitation. Mr. Deepak Misra, the learned Counsel for the Corporation, however, submitted that the finding of the Insurance Court that the employees in connection with the newspaper and periodicals do not come within the purview of the Act, is erroneous since the Insurance Court has not effectively considered if both the press and the newspaper and periodicals are one and the same establishment. Whether the employees of the press and the newspaper belong to the same establishment is a question of fact depending on the inference to be drawn from the materials on record. In the present case it would require further facts to be delved into. While being conscious that the Act is a benevolent statute, I feel interest of justice would be best served if I set aside the order and remit the case back to the Insurance Court for reconsideration after giving both parties opportunity to adduce further evidence. In case the Insurance Court comes to conclusion that the employees of both belong to the same establishment, the demand u/s 45-A of the Act would not be without jurisdiction and the consideration of the question of limitation u/s 77(1A) of the Act would be different. 8. I find that the Corporation did not raise the question of limitation in its written statement. The employer ought to have been given opportunity either to contest the same or take steps for condonation of delay in accordance with law. On this short ground also the order is liable to be set aside. 9. In the result, the appeal is allowed, the order is set aside and the case is remanded for fresh enquiry. There shall be no order as to costs. Final Result : Allowed