REGIONAL DIRECTOR Vs. P K SIDHIQUE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) APPELLANT, Employees' State Insurance Corporation, is questioning the order of the Employees' Insurance Court passed in a review petition in I. C. No. 27 of 1997. Respondent employee sustained employment injury on 4/11/1986. Permanent disablement benefits due to employment injuries, payable to insured employees were revised with effect from 1/4/1995 by resolution dated 7/8/1996 (Annexure I ). The above resolution is as follows:

(2.) RESPONDENT employee was given disablement benefits and the relevant date is the date of disablement. The E. I. Court held that for the revised rate also relevant date is the date of disablement while granting enhanced compensation on the basis of Annexure I. But, when review petition was filed, Corporation took the stand that revised benefits can be given from 1. 4. 1995, granting the enhanced benefit under item No. 36 taking relevant date as the date of granting the original disablement benefit and not the date of disablement. Though disablement was caused on 4/11/1986, he was granted the benefit after 1/1/1988. Hence, he is entitled to the benefits under item No. 36 only and not under item No. 35. The E. I. Court held that the respondent employee is entitled to revised benefit from 1/4/1995 under item 35 as the employment injuries were sustained by him on 4/11/1986. The contention of the appellant in the review petition was that the enhancement will be payable considering the rate applicable at the time of granting disablement benefit. The E. I. Court was of the view that under item Nos. 35 and 36, enhancement is payable depending upon the date when permanent disablement or death was occurred and not from the date when the benefit was granted. Annexure I resolution dated 7th August, 1996 was passed under Section 99 of the Act. Being a statutory resolution, benefits cannot be taken away by circulars. A reading of item Nos. 35 and 36 of the resolution shows that it supports the view of the E. I. Court. E. S. I. Act is a beneficial piece of legislation Act and statutory resolution passed should be interpreted in favour of the beneficiaries when there is any ambiguity (See Royal Talkies, Hyderabad v. E. S. I. Corpn. (AIR 1978 SC 1478) and Transport Corporation of India v. E. S. I. C. (AIR 2000 SC 238) (para 24) ). Here, there is no question of ambiguity also. Words used in resolution are clear and the relevant date is the date of disablement or death as the case may be. Statutory benefits cannot be taken away by circulars as held by the Apex Court in P. K. Mohammad Pvt. Ltd. V. ESI Corpn. (1993 (1) LLJ 482 (SC) ). The Act being a welfare legislation, a liberal construction is to be adopted in favour of the beneficiaries for whom the Act was made (See ESI Corpn. V. South India Flour Mills (P) Ltd. (AIR 1986 SC 1686 ).

(3.) THE E. I. Court dismissed the review petition on the question of time bar also. As per Rule 23 of the Employees State Insurance Rules (Kerala), 1958, review against the order or judgment of the E. I. Court has to be filed within 30 days from the date of pronouncement of the order or judgment. The review petition was filed only on 7/10/1999, i. e. , after 10 months of passing the final order in I. C. No. 27 of 1997 and that too without filing a delay condonation petition. Main order is not challenged. We are of the view that dismissal of the review petition on the ground of delay requires no interference. Since the appeal is filed from an order in review petition and review petition was hopelessly time barred, appeal is liable to be dismissed. The appeal is dismissed with costs.