PUTTATHAYAMMA Vs. REGIONAL DIRECTOR ESI CORPORATION

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS appeal is directed against an order dated 6. 8. 1994 on LA. No. 1 filed in ESI Application no. 1 of 1994 passed by the Employees' insurance Court, Channapatna at Bangalore. In passing the impugned order the said court had rejected the said application for dependent's benefits on the ground that the appellants have approached the court belatedly after 12 long years of delay.

(2.) I heard the learned counsel for the appellants Mr. A. R. Holla, Mr. R. Gururajan appearing for the respondent No. 1 esi Corporation and Mr. B. S. Hadimani appearing for respondent No. 2 General manager of Spun Silk Mills, Channapatna. I have also perused the case records of the court below.

(3.) THE facts in brief are as hereunder: that the husband of the appellant No. 1 and father of minor appellant Nos. 2 to 5 died on 3. 11. 1981 while he was on duty due to employment injury, 'myocardial infarction' and that according to the appellants, the deceased died during the course of employment of respondent No. 2 and, therefore, they are entitled to dependent's benefits under section 52 of the Employees' State Insurance Act, 1948 ('the ESI act' for short ). That the appellants had filed their claim application before the employees' Insurance Court (hereinafter 'ei Court' in short) on 10. 1. 1994 with a delay of about 12 years. They have also filed LA. No. 1 under section 77 (1-A) of the ESI Act with a prayer that the delay in presenting the application be condoned and they be allowed to prosecute their application before the EI Court. The said application was also accompanied by an affidavit sworn to by the appellant No. 1 on her behalf and also on behalf of her minor children, the appellant Nos. 2 to 5, wherein she had contended that her husband died on 3. 11. 1981 in the premises of the mill during the course of his employment, leaving behind him his wife and 4 minor children, the appellants herein and further it is stated therein that they were entitled to receive the dependent's benefits under the ESI Act consequent to the death of the deceased. It is further averred in the affidavit that the appellant No. 1 being an illiterate lady was not aware of the procedure to claim dependent's benefits and that she was approaching respondent No. 2 all through for the said benefits and she was kept under promise by the respondent no. 2 that she would get the said benefits. It is also stated in the said affidavit that she was thus pursuing the matter with the respondent No. 2. It is also added therein that the accident report in question was sent by the respondent No. 2 as late as on 11. 3. 1993 and finally that as against the claim put forth by the appellants, the respondent No. 1, ESI Corporation finally passed an order rejecting the dependent's benefits by a letter dated 27. 7. 1993 and that, therefore, they were forced to file an application before the E1 Court belatedly.