JAI RAJ TEX Vs. ANASI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) APPALLED by the impugned judgment and order dt. 03.08.2012 passed by the Employee's Compensation Commissioner, Pali (for short, 'learned Commissioner'), the appellant -employer has laid this appeal under Sec. 30 of the Employee's Compensation Act, 1923 (for short, 'Act of 1923'). The learned Commissioner, while adjudicating the claim laid on behalf of respondent under the Act of 1923, awarded her compensation to the tune of Rs. 4,48,000/ - with penalty of Rs. 48,000/ - and other expenses Rs. 2,500/ -. The aforesaid compensation with penalty and other expenses was granted to the respondent mother of the employee who died while in employment. The learned Commissioner has recorded a definite finding that death of son of respondent -claimant has occasioned by accident arising out of and in the course of his employment.

(2.) THE learned counsel for the appellant Mr. Yashwant Mehta has argued that factum of employment and occurrence of accident is not in dispute but the claim laid by the respondent was not tenable under the Act of 1923 because deceased employee Omprakash was an insured person within the four corners of the Employees' State Insurance Act, 1948 (for short, 'Act of 1948'). Learned counsel has urged that the appellant establishment is covered under the provisions of the Act of 1948 having Code No. 15/14882/19, the claim laid by the respondent -claimant itself was barred by virtue of Section 53 & 61 of the Act of 1948, and therefore, impugned judgment cannot be sustained. Learned counsel would contend that the respondent -claimant is in receipt of the requisite benefits under the Act of 1948 and an order to this effect was passed by the Employees' State Insurance Corporation on 25.04.2013 and as a consequence a cheque of Rs. 91,893 was also issued to her in May 2013 itself. With these submissions, learned counsel has submitted that the impugned judgment is liable to be reversed and set aside.

(3.) UPON examining the matter in its entirety, it is abundantly clear that respondent has received requisite benefits due to accidental death of her son while in employment. It is trite that for any calamity, which has occasioned during the course of employment, the dependents of the employee cannot claim double benefits i.e. by invoking the provisions of the Act of 1948 as well as Act of 1923. Well it is true that both the Acts are welfare legislations and the object of both the enactments is to offer some succor to an injured employee or to the dependents in the event of death of the employee, but such benefit cannot be claimed under the provisions of both the Acts simultaneously.