JAI RAJ TEX Vs. ANASI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Appalled by the impugned judgment and order dated 3rd of August, 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/ -.

(2.) Mr. P.D. Bohra, learned Counsel for the respondent -claimant has not disputed the factual position that respondent is in receipt of benefits under the Act of 1948. Learned Counsel for the respondent has also admitted this fact that she has received a cheque worth Rs. 91,893/ - in May 2013.

(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.