SUSHIL GOYAL Vs. LUCKSON SIDDIQUE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) BY this first appeal filed under Section 30 of the Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923 challenge is laid to the judgment of the Employees Commissioner dated 20.5.2010 by which the Commissioner allowed the compensation claim filed by respondents herein, and who were the legal representatives/dependents of the deceased workman Sh. Aftab Alam. The Commissioner by the impugned judgment has upheld the relationship of employer and employee between the appellant/employer (respondent before the Commissioner) and the deceased Sh. Aftab Alam who on 12.7.2007 was working as the supervisor/operator while discharging his duties under the electricity pole at B -2521, DSIDC Industrial Area Narela, Delhi. The deceased Sh. Aftab Alam died because an iron pipe hit the electricity line and the same resulted in electrocution of Sh. Aftab Alam, who died on the spot. An FIR bearing no. 384/2007 was also registered with the Police Station at Narela, Delhi under Section 304A IPC.

(2.) APPELLANT admitted that the deceased Sh. Aftab Alam was his workman, however, it was claimed that the appellant was not liable, but that the liability was of ESIC. The argument urged on behalf of the appellant is crystallized in the admission order of this appeal on 13.10.2011 and which reads as under: CM No. 11616/2010 Interim orders are made absolute till the disposal of the appeal. CM stands disposed of. FAO No. 244/2010 Admit. It is urged by learned counsel for the appellant relying upon Bharagath Engineering Vs. R. Ranganayaki and Anr. (2003) 2 SCC 138 that once the establishment of the appellant was covered/registered under the Employees' State Insurance Act, 1948 (in short 'ESI Act'), then employees will be entitled to the benefits from the ESI Corporation, even assuming the contributions to the corporation are not paid by the appellant. Reliance is also placed upon Section 53 of the Employees' State Insurance Act, 1948, which states that once an establishment is covered under the ESI Act, then the provisions of Employee's Compensation Act, 1923 would not apply. Accordingly, it will therefore be necessary to issue notice to the ESI Corporation which is added as respondent no. 6 in this appeal. Amended memo of parties be filed within two weeks along with the process fee for service. Notice now be issued to the respondent no. 6/ESI Corporation, on filing of process fee, both in the ordinary method as well as by registered AD post, returnable on 27th January, 2012. Copy of this order be sent along with the notice.

(3.) BEFORE me, learned counsel for the appellant/employer refers to various paragraphs of the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Bharagath Engineering Vs. R. Ranganayaki and Anr. (2003) 2 SCC 138 to argue that once the employee was an insured person from his date of employment, consequently, even if insurance premium is not paid, the liability will be of ESIC and not of the appellant. Reliance is placed by learned counsel for the appellant on paras 9 to 12 of the said judgment which read as under: