MANAGING DIRECTOR, SHEVAROYS TEXTILES PVT. LTD Vs. VALLI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is directed by the ESI Corporation against the Order, dtd. 6/7/2020 made in E.C. No.1012 of 2015 passed by the Workmen Compensation Commissioner, Coonoor.

(2.) According to the Appellant, the Claimants in E.C. No.1012 of 2015 are the Legal Heirs of deceased Sengottaiyan, a Casual Contractor, who was engaged to replace piece of asbestos sheet in the Factory of the Appellant, which is a spinning mill covered under Employee's State Insurance Act, 1948 vide Code No./63/73491/18 issued by the Employees State Insurance Corporation. Hence, the deceased Sengottaiyan becomes an automatic covered Employee and an insured person. Therefore, the insured person or his dependants shall not be entitled to receive or recover, whether from the Employer of the insured person or from any other person, any Compensation or damages under the Workemen's Compensation Act, 1923 or any other law for the time being in force or otherwise, in respect of an employment injury sustained by the insured person as an Employee under this Act-vide Sec. 53 of the Employee's State Insurance Act, 1948. Besides, the dependants are not entitled to get compensation from the Appellant by virtue of Sec. 61 of the ESI Act. Hence, the Order passed by the Workmen's Compensation Commissioner in E.C. No.1012 of 2015, dtd. 6/7/2020 is liable to be set aside.

(3.) The facts leading to filing of E.C. No.1012 of 2015 by the Claimants are that, the deceased Sengottaiyan sustained injury during his course of employment in the Appellant-Factory and succumbed to the injuries sustained by him. The Claimants as dependants filed an Application before the Workmen's Compensation Commissioner in E.C. No.1012 of 2015 for Compensation for the death of the deceased Sengottaiyan. By filing the Counter Statement, the Appellant resisted the claim on the ground that since the deceased Sengottaiyan is insured under the ESIC, the Claimants are governed under the ESI Act and therefore, the application is not tenable under Employee's Compensation Act, 1923.