EMPLOYEES STATE INSURANCE CORPORATION Vs. DASAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The above appeal is by the Employees State Insurance Corporation, hereinafter referred to as Corporation against the Order dated 12.3.2010 in C.M.P. 16/2010 in E.I.C. 59/2005 by the Employees Insurance Court, Kozhikode, hereinafter referred to as the E.I. Court. The respondent an employee in a covered establishment after his retirement moved the E.I. Court complaining the non providing of sickness benefit for his certified period of sickness by the Corporation. His application numbered as E.I.C. 59/2005 was allowed by E.I. court directing the Corporation to grant him sickness benefit covering the 'entire period of his certified sickness' from 20.1.2005 onwards. Employee later moved a petition, C.M.P. No. 16/2010, before the E.I. Court stating that he has not been granted sickness benefit for the entire certified period as directed by the court. After hearing both sides E.I. Court noticed that the findings made in its Order disposing E.I.C. 59/2005 have not been correctly reflected in the operative portion of that Order in specifying the period for which applicant was entitled to sickness benefit. A clarificatory order was then passed allowing the C.M.P. and its operative portion reads thus:-

(2.) To appreciate the challenges canvassed in the appeal controversy projected and resolved in the application of employee in E.I.C. 59/2005 has to be looked into. The employee who retired from service on 1.1.2005 claimed sickness benefit for the entire period of his certified sickness commencing from 6.1.2005 to 9/6/2005. He was granted sickness benefit by the Corporation only for 13 days i.e. from 6.1.2005 to 20.6.2005. He moved the E.I. Court with the application E.I.C. 59/2005 for a declaration of his entitlement for getting the 'sickness benefit' during the entire period of his certified sickness. Corporation resisted that application contending that the definition of sickness benefit contemplates absence from work and as such it cannot be extended to a retired employee. E.I. Court dilating upon the controversy with reference to S. 2(14) of the Employee's State Insurance Act, R. 55 of Employee's State Insurance (Central) Rules, 1950 and also judicial pronouncements rendered on the question involved, concluded that for the benefit period in relation to the contribution period an employee is entitled to sickness benefit. In the case on hand where contribution had, admittedly, been paid with respect to the employee from 1st October 2004 to 31st March 2005 it was held that he is entitled to get 'sickness benefit' upto 31.12.2005. Coming to that conclusion his application was allowed with direction to the Corporation to grant him sickness benefit for 'the entire period of his certified sickness from 20.1.2005 onwards'.

(3.) Corporation complied with the Order of E.I. Court, but, only to the extent of providing sickness benefit for 78 days more, over and above the 13 days already granted, on the premise that R. 55 of E.S.I. Central Rules, 1950 restricted payment for more than 91 days in any consecutive benefit period. Though the certified sickness period of the employee covered more than 91 days, from 6.1.2005 to 9.6.2005, he was entitled to get benefit for the sickness period of 91 days only under the Order passed by E.I. court was the view taken by Corporation to provide him sickness benefit for such period only. That gave rise to the application C.M.P. No. 16/2010 by the employee before the E.I. Court for orders to direct the Corporation to provide him the sickness benefit for entire period of his certified sickness as ordered in E.I.C. 59/2005.