Madhya Pradesh High Court
Ram Prasas Pandey vs Teamlease Services Private Limited ... on 11 December, 2013
1
M.A. No. 184 Of 2013
11.12.2013
Shri Sanjay Verma, learned counsel for the petitioner.
Shri Piyush Bhatnagar, learned counsel for respondent.
Heard.
This appeal under Section 30 of Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923 is directed against award 9.11.2012 on the following proposed question of law:
(i) Whether the Commissioner for Workmen's Compensation committed an error while discarding the oral and documentary evidence on record and holding that the appellant failed to prove that the deceased died due to an accident occurred arising out of and in the course of his employment?
(ii) Whether the Commissioner for Workmen's Compensation committed an error while holding the applicability of ESI Act, in the respondent establishment and deceased was covered under the provisions of ESI Act?
(iii) Whether the Commissioner for Workmen's compensation committed an error while rejecting the claim of the appellant on the ground of maintainability as well as on merit?
The relevant facts giving rise to proposed questions of law briefly are that one Bhupedra Kumar Pandey was appointed as Technician with respondent establishment. He died on 2 19.7.2010 in the course of his employment. Appellant father of the deceased workman filed an application under Section 22 of the Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923 claiming compensation to the tune of Rs.5,00,000/.
Respondent employer refuted the claim that the deceased died during course of employment. It was, however, stated that the deceased workman being insured under Employees State Insurance Act, 1948 rejected the Claim Petition.
Section 53 of the Act, 1948 stipulates:
"53. Bar against receiving or recovery of compensation or damages under any other law. An insured person or his dependants shall not be entitled to receive or recover, whether from the employer of the insured person or from any other person, any compensation or damages under the Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923 or any other law for the time being in force or otherwise, in respect of an employment injury sustained by the insured person as an employee under this Act."
Since, in the case at hand it is established by finding in paragraph 26 of the award that the deceased workman was insured under 1948 Act, the conclusion arrived at by Commissioner, Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923 in respect of maintainability of Claim under 1923 Act cannot be faulted with.
In view whereof no substantial question of law being established the appeal fails and is dismissed.
(SANJAY YADAV) JUDGE Vivek Tripathi