EMPLOYEES STATE INSURANCE Vs. LAXMIBAI BALRAM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The short question involved in the present appeal is whether the deceased could be considered an employee as defined under Section 2(9) of the Employees' State Insurance Act and, whether dependant's benefit is payable to the heirs of the deceased.

(2.) The undisputed facts are as follows: One Balram Pachayya was employed as a weaver in respondent No. 2, Mill. He was covered under the provisions of the Employees' State Insurance Act (for short 'E.S.I. Act') from the day he joined employment. It appears that on 24.11.1984, Balram complained of a pain in his neck during the course of his employment. He was, therefore, admitted to MGM Hospital. He expired in the hospital on 4.12.1984. The wages paid to Balram for working for 21 days in November 1984 were Rs. 814.73 at the rate of Rs. 40.22 per day. Respondent No. 1, who is the wife of Balram claimed dependant's benefit from the appellant. This claim was denied by the appellant Corporation by its letter dated 6.4.1985 since Balram was not an employee as defined under Section 2(9) of the E.S.I. Act. The appellant Corporation was of the view that since the wages of Balram exceeded Rs. 1,000 (which was the limit for coverage under the E.S.I. Act at the relevant point of time) his dependants were not entitled to any benefit.

(3.) Being aggrieved by this denial, respondent No. 1 filed a claim under the E.S.I. Act before the E.I. Court being Application (ESI) No. 75 of 1985. The E.I. Court held, by relying on the judgment of the Division Bench of this Court in case of Mohammed Ismail Ansari v. E.S.I.C Bombay, 1979 2 LLJ 168, that the deceased Balram was an employee within the meaning of Section 2(9) of the Act and, therefore, his dependants were entitled to benefit under the provisions of the Act and the regulations framed there under w.e.f. 4.12.1984.