SHEELADEVI MATLANI Vs. COMMISSIONER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE facts giving rise to this petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution are as follows.

(2.) THE petitioner owns a factory Rajashree Plastic, Indore and carries on the business of manufacture and sale of plastic goods. The said factory is covered under the provisions of the Employees State Insurance Act, 1948 (for short 'the Act') since the year 1976. The Employees State Insurance Corporation (for short the Corporation') has allotted "18/7465/90" as the employees Code number to the petitioner's factory. The deceased Narain who was an employee of the petitioner in the said factory suffered an employment injury during the course of his employment with the petitioner and succumbed to the injuries caused to him. The petitioner reported the accident to the Corporation. The respondents No. 2 and 3 submitted an application under the Workmen's Compensation Act before the respondent No. 1 of the award of compensation to them. The petitioner and the Corporation were joined as parties to the said application. The petitioner remained absent and was proceeded with ex-parte. The name of the Corporation was deleted from the application. The respondent No. 1 by order (Ann. 'C') passed on 21-1-1980 awarded Rs. 13,500/- as compensation against the petitioner. Thereafter the Additional Tehsildar Indore issued a deemed notice No. A/76/81/82 dated 1-10-82 (Ann. 'D'), requiring the petitioner to deposit the amount of compensation as awarded by the respondent No. 1. The petitioner has challenged this demand notice (Ann. 'D') in this petition on the ground that as the deceased Narain was an insured person and the petitioner's factory was covered under the provisions of the Act the respondents Nos. 2 and 3 are not entitled to claim or recover any compensation from the petitioner on account of the death of the deceased caused by an employment injury.

(3.) HAVING heard learned Counsel for the parties I have come to the conclusion that this petition deserves to be allowed. It is not disputed that the petitioner's factory is covered under the provisions of the Act before the injuries caused to the deceased which resulted in his death. It is also not disputed that the deceased was an insured person and that the fact that the deceased received employment injuries was reported by the petitioner to the Corporation.