Technocraft Toolings Vs. Dhropadabai Wd/O Ambadas Lahane and Others - Court Judgment

SooperKanoon Citationsooperkanoon.com/1105805
CourtMumbai Aurangabad High Court
Decided OnJul-16-2012
Case NumberFirst Appeal No.462 of 2011
JudgeS.V. GANGAPURWALA
AppellantTechnocraft Toolings
RespondentDhropadabai Wd/O Ambadas Lahane and Others
Excerpt:
workmen's compensation act, 1923 - section 30 – employees state insurance act 1948 - section 53 – case referred: a. trehan vs. associated electrical agencies and another 1996 (4) s.c.c. 255 (para 2).oral judgment: the employer has assailed the judgment delivered by the commissioner workmen's compensation thereby allowing the application for compensation filed by the claimants. 2. shri pawar, the learned counsel for the appellant submits that the claimants are not entitled to receive the compensation under the provisions of the workmen's compensation act. the deceased was an insured person as defined in sec. 2(14) of the employees state insurance act 1948 (hereinafter referred as to "e.s.i. act" for the sake of brevity). the claimants were the dependents of the deceased as laid down in sec. 2(6a) of the said act. by virtue of sec.53 of the e.s.i. act, the claimants are not entitled for any amount. the learned counsel relies on the judgment of the apex court in a case of a. trehan vs. associated electrical agencies and another reported in 1996 (4) s.c.c. 255. the learned counsel also submits that the death of the deceased was not caused by an accident arising out of or in the course of his employment. 3. shri imale, the learned counsel for respondents submits that the accident took place on 02nd april, 2005. the application for workmen's compensation was filed in the year 2006 and the benefits under the e.s.i. act were admitted on 24th august, 2009. this would go to show that when the application was filed before the commissioner, workmen's compensation invoking the provisions of the workmen's compensation act, the benefit under the e.s.i. act admittedly were not given. no fault can be found in the order passed by the commissioner, workmen's compensation. the accident occurred during the course and out of the employment. 4. sec. 53 of the employees state insurance act 1948 reads as under : "employees state insurance act 1948 (53. bar against receiving or recovery of compensation or damages under any other law - an insured person or his dependants shall not be entitled to receive or recover, whether from the employer of the insured person or from any other person, any compensation or damages under the workmen's compensation act, 1923 or any other law for the time being in force or otherwise, in respect of an employment injury sustained by the insured person as an employee under this act.)" 5. perusal of the said provision, it is manifest that an insured person or his dependents are not entitled to receive or recover either from the employer of the insured person or from any other person any compensation under the workmen's compensation act or any other law. 6. in the present case, it is not disputed that the claimants are getting the monthly amount and the benefits under the e.s.i. act. as the benefits under the e.s.i. act is already extended to them and by virtue of complete bar as engrafted u/sec. 53 of the e.s.i. act, the commissioner workmen's compensation did not have the jurisdiction to pass any award granting compensation invoking the provisions of the workmen's compensation act. the said issue is no longer res-integra in view of the judgment of the apex court in a case of a. trehan referred supra. 7. in view of the above, there is no need to refer to the other aspects of the matter, as pursuant to this legal position itself the appeal succeeds. 8. in view of the above, the impugned judgment and award passed by the commissioner, workmen's compensation is quashed and set aside. the application filed by the respondents/claimants u/sec. 30 stands rejected. the amount deposited by the appellant shall be refunded to the appellant along with accrued interest if any.
Judgment:

Oral Judgment:

The employer has assailed the judgment delivered by the Commissioner Workmen's Compensation thereby allowing the application for compensation filed by the claimants.

2. Shri Pawar, the learned counsel for the appellant submits that the claimants are not entitled to receive the compensation under the provisions of the Workmen's Compensation Act. The deceased was an insured person as defined in Sec. 2(14) of the Employees State Insurance Act 1948 (hereinafter referred as to "E.S.I. Act" for the sake of brevity). The claimants were the dependents of the deceased as laid down in Sec. 2(6A) of the said Act. By virtue of Sec.53 of the E.S.I. Act, the claimants are not entitled for any amount. The learned counsel relies on the judgment of the Apex Court in a case of A. Trehan Vs. Associated Electrical Agencies and another reported in 1996 (4) S.C.C. 255. The learned counsel also submits that the death of the deceased was not caused by an accident arising out of or in the course of his employment.

3. Shri Imale, the learned counsel for respondents submits that the accident took place on 02nd April, 2005. The application for workmen's compensation was filed in the year 2006 and the benefits under the E.S.I. Act were admitted on 24th August, 2009. This would go to show that when the application was filed before the Commissioner, Workmen's Compensation invoking the provisions of the Workmen's Compensation Act, the benefit under the E.S.I. Act admittedly were not given. No fault can be found in the order passed by the Commissioner, Workmen's Compensation. The accident occurred during the course and out of the employment.

4. Sec. 53 of the Employees State Insurance Act 1948 reads as under :

"EMPLOYEES STATE INSURANCE ACT 1948

(53. Bar against receiving or recovery of compensation or damages under any other law - An insured person or his dependants shall not be entitled to receive or recover, whether from the employer of the insured person or from any other person, any compensation or damages under the Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923 or any other law for the time being in force or otherwise, in respect of an employment injury sustained by the insured person as an employee under this Act.)"

5. Perusal of the said provision, it is manifest that an insured person or his dependents are not entitled to receive or recover either from the employer of the insured person or from any other person any compensation under the Workmen's Compensation Act or any other law.

6. In the present case, it is not disputed that the claimants are getting the monthly amount and the benefits under the E.S.I. Act. As the benefits under the E.S.I. Act is already extended to them and by virtue of complete bar as engrafted U/Sec. 53 of the E.S.I. Act, the Commissioner Workmen's Compensation did not have the jurisdiction to pass any award granting compensation invoking the provisions of the Workmen's Compensation Act. The said issue is no longer res-integra in view of the judgment of the Apex Court in a case of A. Trehan referred supra.

7. In view of the above, there is no need to refer to the other aspects of the matter, as pursuant to this legal position itself the appeal succeeds.

8. In view of the above, the impugned judgment and award passed by the Commissioner, Workmen's Compensation is quashed and set aside. The application filed by the respondents/claimants U/Sec. 30 stands rejected. The amount deposited by the appellant shall be refunded to the appellant along with accrued interest if any.