9911796707
TMI Blog1997 (9) TMI 621X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ult of this accident one of his hands was amputated. Notwithstanding the accident, the appellant allowed the respondent to continue in its service without any reduction in remuneration. The ESI Act was applicable to the employee of the appellant company, including the respondent. After the aforesaid accident a claim was maid thereunder and as a result thereof the disabled benefit of ₹ 260/- per month on account of permanent/partial disablement was ordered to be paid to the respondent. This decision of the employees State Insurance Corporation to pay the said amount was not challenged. It is the case of the appellant that besides this benefit under the ESI Act, the medical expenses for the treatment of the respondent received the best medical treatment available in that area. While still in service the respondent filed OP No. 108 of 1981 in the Court of Subordinate Judge, Teilicherry, under Order 33 Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure, seeking Permission of the Court to allow him to file a suit against the appellant herein for ₹ 1,50,000/- as compensation for the injuries sustained by him on a account of the aforesaid accident which had taken place in Ap ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... only three provisions of the ESI which are relevant for the present case . Section 2(8) defines the term employment injury and reads as follows: Employment injury means perennial injury to an occupational disease arising out of and in the course of his Employment, being an insurable employment whether the accident occurs or the occupational diseases is contracted within or outside the territorial limits of India. The two other sections with which we are concerned in this case are Sections 53 and 61 which are follows: 53. Bar against receiving or recovery of compensation on damages under any other law:- An insured person or his depends shall not be entitled to receive or recovery whether from the employer of the insured person or from any other person, any compensation or damages under the Workmen s Compensation Act, 1923 (8 of 1923) of 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. 61. bar of benefits under other enactments:- When a person is entitled to any of the benefits provided by this Act, he shall not be entitled to receive any simi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ed with the decision of this Court in A. Trehan Vs. Associated Electrical Agencies and Anr.[(1996) 4 SCC 255]. In that case Trehan, who was an employee of the Respondent, received injuries on his face while he was carrying out repairs of a television in the course of his employment as a result of which he lost vision in the left eye. After receiving the benefit from the Employees State Insurance Corporation under the ESI Act he served a notice on the respondent demanding ₹ 7 lacs as compensation of ₹ 1,06,785/-. The employer objected to the maintainable of the same and relied upon Section 53 of the ESI Act. The Commissioner overruled the employer s objection and followed the judgement of the Full Bench of the Kerala High Court in the present case and observed that ESI being a welfare legislation, the Parliament could not have intended to create a bar against the workmen claiming more advantageous benefit under the Workmen s Compensation Act. The single judge of the High court dismissed the writ petition filed by the employer but the Division Bench, in appeal, held that in view of the bar created by Section 53, the application for compensation filed by Trehan was not ma ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ndicate that this section is not limited to ousting the relief claimed only under any status but the workings of the section are such that an insured person would not be entitled to make a claim in Torts which has the force of law under the ESI Act. Even though the Esi Act is a beneficial legislation the Legislature had throught it fit to prohibit an insured person from receiving or recovering compensation or damages under any other law, including Torts, in cases where the injury had been substained by him is an employment injury. The ESI Act has been enacted to provide certain benefits to the case of sickness, maternity and employment injury and make provisions in respect thereof. Under this Act contribution is made not only by the employee but also by the employer . The claim by the employer against the employer where the relationship of the employer and employee exists were meant to be governed by the ESI Act alone. It is precisely for this reason that the Madras High Court in Mangalamma s case (supra) had observed that the object of Section 53 of the ESI Act was to save the employer from facing more than one claim in relation to the same accident. This, in our opinion ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
