MANAGER, GALAXY SECURITY SERVICES Vs. E.M.MOLY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal raises an important question regarding the jurisdiction of the Commissioner, appointed under section 20 of the Employees Compensation Act, 1923 (in short, the Act of 1923), to entertain and decide an application for compensation under Sec. 22 of the Act of 1923, when the employee defined under the said Act was covered under the Employees State Insurance Act, 1948 (in short, the Act of 1948).

(2.) The application was filed by the respondents 1 to 5, claiming compensation on account of the death of one Balakrishnan on 21.7.2003. Deceased Balakrishnan was the husband of 1st respondent, father of respondents 2 and 3 and son of respondents 4 and 5. The Commissioner, after examining the rival contentions, granted compensation to them to a tune of Rs. 3,68,340.00 with 12% simple interest. The appellant is the 2nd opposite party in the proceedings before the Commissioner, who is said to be the employer of deceased Balakrishnan.

(3.) Admittedly, Balakrishnan died due to drowning, and he was found dead at about 5 am on 21.7.2003 in a pond nearby his place if work. Applicants contended that the deceased went to the nearby pond to wash his body and uniform, and accidentally got drowned. Case of the applicants is that his death occurred during the course of employment with the 2nd opposite party, on behalf of the 1st opposite party. It is not in dispute that deceased Balakrishnan was working as a security personnel, guarding a mobile phone tower, erected and maintained by the 1st opposite party. The appellant/2nd opposite party is a business concern engaged in providing man power for security services.