PANDY V Vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF LABOUR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is an appeal directed against the order, dated February 2, 1990, passed by the Commissioner, Workmen's Compensation in W. C. No 112 of 1988.

(2.) THE appellant was employed under the respondent. That on December 15, 1984, the appellant sustained injuries in the course of and during the employment under the respondent. The second respondent, establishment was covered under the E. S. I. Act. But, the appellant was not covered as he was drawing Rs. 1,000 at that time and, therefore, the benefits under E. S. I. Act were not available to him. The appellant wrote a letter to the respondent, E. S. I. Corporation on March 20, 1985 apprising of this said fact and requested them to make necessary arrangements to get sickness benefit and disablement benefit and he did not receive any reply. As the accident occurred on December 15, 1984 and on that day, the appellant was not eligible to any of the benefits under the E. S. I. Act, he, preferred his claim before the Commissioner, Workmen's Compensation at Madurai. The respondent resisted the said claim only on the ground that the appellant was entitled to the benefits under the Employees' State Insurance Act and not under Workmen's Compensation Act. The other aspects of the case were not in dispute.

(3.) THE Commissioner, Workmen's Compensation has taken into consideration, the materials placed before it and came to the conclusion that the appellant is not entitled to maintain his action under the Workmen's Compensation Act. Aggrieved by the same, the appellant has filed this appeal.