AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Govardhan, J.—This appeal is against the order passed by the Additional Commissioner for Workmen''s Compensation-n (Deputy
Commissioner of Labour-II) Madras-6, dated 29-12-1987 in W.C No. 185/1986. The applicant''s case is as follows: The applicant''s son
Chandru was employed under the Opposite Party as Lab. Assistant at Vet-Pharm, Padappai, in the accident arising out of and in the course of
employment on 9-1-1986 at about 8:45 P. M. Chandru died. At that time, he was paid a sum of Rs. 2 50/- per month as wages. The applicant
has therefore made a claim before the Opposite Party for compensation.
The Opposite Party resisted the same, by contending that the applicant was working at Padappai, and the Employees'' State Insurance Act
(hereinafter called as ''the Act'') has been extended to him and contributions were made by the employer and therefore, they are not liable to pay
compensation.
The Deputy Commissioner of Labour who made an enquiry on these rival contentions of the applicant and the Opposite Party, has given a
finding that the workman who was employed at Padappai factory cannot become an insured person as defined under the Act by virtue of the
provisions of the Act not being extended to Padappai area, the Opposite Party has to pay the compensation fixed by him to the applicant and
directed the Opposite Party to deposit a sum of Rs 21.528/-
Aggrieved over the same, the Opposite Party has come forward with this appeal.
The learned counsel appearing for the appellant would argue that the applicant was appointed to work in the factory of the Opposite Party,
situate at Padappai, and the provisions of the Act has been extended to the Opposite Party and the Employees State Insurance Authorities have
given the Insurance Number to the deceased and contributions have also been collected from the employer and the Opposite Party who is the
employer of the deceased, having taken effective steps for payment of the compensation to the employees under, being compensated in any
mishap, the Employees State Insurance Corporation is bound to pay the compensation to the applicant and the order passed by the Deputy
Commissioner, that the Opposite Party has to pay the compensation on account of the provisions of the Act has not been extended to the
Padappai village, is not valid and the order is therefore liable to be set aside. According to the learned appearing for the appellant, the suits of the
employee was not the criterion for the insurability of an employee. A reading of the order passed by the Deputy Commissioner would show that
the Deputy Commissioner has accepted the version of the applicant that the payment of Employees State Insurance contribution by the employer is
a voluntary one and since the factory is situated in a Revenue village to which Employees State Insurance Scheme is not extended, the applicant is
entitled to claim compensation under the Workmen''s Compensation Act from the Opposite Party. As per Section 53 of the Act, an insured
person or his dependants are not eligible to receive from the employer of the insured person, any compensation and damages under the
Workmen''s Compensation Act in respect of an employee''s injury sustained by the insured person under the Act, the question that has to be
considered is whether the dependent of the deceased viz., the applicant is entitled to receive from the employer viz., the Opposite Party,
compensation towards the death of her son on account of the fact that the Opposite Party has made contribution to the Employees State Insurance
Corporation. It is to be noted that went before the deceased was appointed by the Opposite Party, as a Lab. Assistant by its order dated 30th
March. 1985 as evidenced by Ex. A-1 and the deceased joining the Opposite Party on 6th April. 1985 as per his joining report the Opposite
Party has addressed a letter to the Regional Director, Employees State Insurance Corporation on 7-2-1983 under Ex. R-6, seeking clarification
whether E.S.I. contribution is payable by them in view of the fact that all the activities of the foundation, viz., the establishment are in Padappai and
the staff are also working in Padappai, which is outside the E.S.I. Territory. This letter under Ex.R-6 would show that the opposite party was
aware of the fact that their activities are carried at Padappai which is outside the E.S.I. Territory. Subsequent to this letter dated 7-2-1993,
contributions have been paid by the Opposite Party to the Employees State Insurance Corporation in pursuance of the E.S.I. Code allotted to
them and the contributions were also made mentioning the insurance number of each and every employee of the Opposite Party. An inference has
therefore to be drawn to the effect that the Opposite Party, was aware of the fact that they have to make contribution to the Employees State
Insurance Corporation and have been making contribution to all their employees. It is needless to say that the Act is a beneficial enactment and the
provisions of the same have to be interpreted liberally in favour of the persons for whose benefit, the enactment has been made. If such an
interpretation is given, we can come to the conclusion that the deceased Chandran was an employee under the Opposite Party as defined u/s 2(9)
of the Act. In the decision reported in Modi Rubber Limited Case (1986 L. I.C. 273) it has been held that Section 2(9) of the Act contemplates a
situation where the expression ''employee'' working in any factory or establishment includes any person employed for wages on work connected
with the administration of the factory or the establishment or any department or branch thereof and the object is quite obvious from the provisions,
viz., the benefit which is extended to the employees working in the main factory or establishment as the case may be, will have to be automatically
extended to the employees working in all branches wherever they are established, whether they are within the area of operation or outside the area
of operation of the Act. not withstanding the fact that number of employees is less than 20. When the establishment of the Opposite party which
has been described as a foundation by the Opposite Party in their letter dated 7-2-1983 under Ex.R-3 has addressed a letter to the E.S.I.
Authorities to clarify the position. Where the E.S.I, contribution is payable by the foundation to their staff working at Padappai and subsequently
when they are making contributions to the E.S.I. Authorities the finding of the Commissioner for Workmen''s Compensation that the applicant is
entitled to receive compensation from the Opposite Party alone and the benevolent provision of the Employees State Insurance Corporation are
not available to her is not tenable. In that view, I am of opinion that order passed by the Deputy Commissioner is liable to be set aside. In the
result, the appeal is allowed setting aside the order passed by the Additional Commissioner for Workmen''s Compensation-II Madras. The
Opposite Party is directed to render all assistance to the applicant to get the compensation to her from the Employees State Corporation. No
costs.