V.V. TITANIUM PIGMENTS PVT., LTD Vs. JOHNSON

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The learned counsel appearing for the appellant has submitted that the learned Commissioner for Workmen's Compensation erred in rejecting the letter dated 23.11.2002, in which the appellant had clearly stated that the deceased was an insured employee within the meaning of E.S.I. and his code number was also given. though these facts were handed over to the Commissioner, the same had been rejected in their order on the ground that E.S.I. identity card and subscription was not produced. In view of the code number having been given by the appellant, there could not be any dispute that the deceased was not an insured employee and hence the learned Commissioner erred in allowing the claim.

(2.) Further, the learned counsel has submitted that the learned Commissioner ought to have noted that E.S.I.Act is more beneficial than the Workmen's Compensation Act. By virtue of Section 53 of the E.S.I.Act, the third respondent was not entitled to claim any amount under the Workmen's Compensation Act, since the deceased was an insured employee within the meaning of E.S.I.Act. The learned counsel in support of his contention had cited a Supreme Court citation also.

(3.) The learned counsel appearing for the claimant has submitted that the claimant's husband was employed as a Mason under the second respondent/Contractor, who was engaged by the first respondent herein and that her husband had expired while doing his duty in the course of employment. On considering the employer-employee relationship, the Deputy Commissioner of Labour had granted compensation. Therefore, the Deputy Commissioner of Labour is the competent authority to decide the case.