Madhya Pradesh High Court
E.S.I. Corporation vs Siara (Smt.) And Anr. on 5 May, 1998
Equivalent citations: [1999(81)FLR122], (1999)IILLJ394MP
Author: J.G. Chitre
Bench: J.G. Chitre
JUDGMENT J.G. Chitre, J.
1. The appellant is hereby assailing correctness, propriety and legality of the order which has been passed by Employees' State Insurance Court in Case No. 35/1993. A petition was moved by one Siara w/o Siraj Mohd. r/o 130, Labour Colony, Mandsaur in the E.S.I. Court, Mandsaur for getting benefit of extended sickness as she was working in Jyoti Slate Pen Works, Mandsaur as she was suffering from silicosis. The record shows that said Siara was working in the said factory from 1980 to July 2, 1992 and during that period she contracted 'silicosis'. The record further shows that she was registered at S.No. 10338150 with E.S.I. Corporation through Jyoti Slate Pen Works, Mandsaur vide code, No. 18-8401-42.
2. On May 20, 1993 Respondent No.1 Siara submitted an application vide form No. 16-A and informed the authority about her contacting silicosis. Said form and information was forwarded by Jyoti Slate Pen Works to the concerned officials of E.S.I. Corporation on May 25, 1993 vide B-I(c). Necessary information was also supplied to E.S.I. Board. The present appellant, the Corporation had called Siara to its office at Mandsaur vide letter dated July 10, 1993. She was asked to come to the office on August 28, 1993. On December 21, 1992 a letter was issued in favour of said Siara permitting her to have leave for seven days commencing from July 2, 1992 on account of her contacting 'silicosis'. However, she was not paid the benefit of such absence from the work on account of contacting 'Silicosis'.
3. Said Siara made an application to the Corporation, the present appellant by completing necessary formalities but inspite of that the appellant, as alleged by Siara, did not render her benefit of insurance for said period of seven days. That gave rise to the petition for compensation by Siara which was decided by ESI Court by its order on March 13, 1996, which is the subject matter of challenge in this appeal.
4. Shri Maltare, counsel appearing for the appellant ESI Court (hereinafter referred to as Corporation convenience), submitted that in view of provisions of Section 52A of The Employees' State Insurance Act, 1948 (for short the Act) Siara w/o Siraj Mohd, was not entitled to get said benefit as she has not worked for six months continuously prior to herself contacting 'silicosis'. Ms. Kasrekar, counsel appearing for respondents submitted that the order passed by the ESI Court is not correct and proper.
5. Section 52A, sub-section (1) starts with-
'If an employee employed in any employment specified in part A of the Third Schedule contracts any disease Specified therein as an occupational disease peculiar to that employment or if an employee employed in the employment specified in Part B of that Schedule for a continuous period of not less than six months contracts any disease specified therein as an occupational disease peculiar to that employment or if any employee employed in an employment specified in Part C of that Schedule for such continuous period as the Corporation may specify in respect of each such employment contracts any disease specified as an occupational disease peculiar to that employment the contracting of the disease shall unless the contrary is proved, be deemed to be an employment injury arising out of and in the course of employment.
Schedule 3 provided to the enactment points in Part A Infection and parasitic disease contracted in an occupation where there is a particular risk of contamination.
The said Schedule provides the disruption of the employment which has been indicated by (a)(b)(c) and (d). The employment description indicated by letter (d) are -
Other work carrying a particular risk of contamination. The said Schedule further gives the descriptions of various employment involved in said risk which has been covered by provisions of the Act, The schedule Part C provides the employment connected with pneumoconiosis caused by sclerogenic mineral dust (Silicosis, anthro silicosis asbestosis) and silico-tuberculosis provided that silicosis is an essential factor in causing the resultant incapacity or death.
6. While reading provisions of Section 52A a distinction has to be understood between the first part of sub-section of Section 52A of the Act which starts with these words "if an employee employed in any employment specified in Part A of the Third Schedule contracts any disease specified therein as an occupational disease peculiar to the employment". This has been totally dissociated by word 'or'. By getting dissected by the word 'or' the next sentence starts with these words "if an employee employed in the employment specified in Part B of that Schedule for a continuous period of not less than six months contracts any disease specified therein as an occupational disease peculiar to that employment". This has also been described further by word 'or' the third part of Sub-section 1 which starts with "if an employee employed in any employment specified in Part C of that Schedule for such continuous period as the Corporation may specify in respect of each such employment contracts any disease specified therein as an occupational disease peculiar to that employment. Thereafter, Sub-section 1 provides "that the contracting of the disease shall, unless the contrary is proved, be deemed to be an 'employment injury' arising out of and in the course of employment". Learned Counsel for the appellant pointed his finger towards continuous employment in such industries for six months. It means indirectly that the appellant wants that Siara w/o Siraj Mohd. should have been in work continuously for six months for all the days before the date when she noticed that she had contracted silicosis. Silicosis is an effect which has been caused by silicones which is occupational hazard involved in the employment of a person in Slate manufacturing industry. Needless to say, silicosis is a process which continuously grows in the body as if a hidden enemy is growing. It signifies its appearance when a person starts noticing its painful effect or resultant effect. Needless to say that there are number of diseases which human beings suffer which grow as if they are growing like an iceberg. It is a matter of experience that only 1/8 of the iceberg is visible over the water. That is the main case with the diseases which are similar to silicosis. It is pertinent to note at this juncture that this silicosis grows into silico tuberculosis. By keeping in view the dangerous trend of growth of silicosis, the legislature was required to mention it in the form of silico-tuberculosis in Part C as pneumoconiosis caused by sclerogenic mineral dust (silicosis, anthrosiliosis asbestosis). Many industries have brought number of diseases to the mankind in different forms. The mankind went forward to have more and more industries and this industry minded acquiscious society had landed in vicious circle of benefits and curses. The mankind, more particularly, the scientists are working hard to find out the escape gate off the stranglehold of groups of such diseases which have been thrown as curses of industrial growth at the cost of environmental balances. Till that time victims are to suffer consequential pain and agonies.
7. In this background how it is to be accepted that an employee working in state industry should prove that he was in continuous employment as such prior to the day when he notices that he had contacted silicosis. We are in the era of 'welfare State'. Because of that, beneficial enactments like the Act has been brought forth by the welfare State by legislation. The benevolent spirit behind it can not be permitted to be defeated by such technical objections. In fact, the Corporation which has been created for the purpose of giving benefit to such hapless employees, should not come with such objections. The attitude expressed by a Corporation while raising such objection stands deprecated.
8. By interpreting provisions of Section 52A of the Act I do not find that the intention behind enacting the Employees' State Insurance Act, 1948 is anything like that of the objections which have been raised by the appellant. It is pertinent to note at this juncture that a sentence has been used in Section 52A which needs to be specially marked "unless the contrary is proved, be deemed to be on employment injury arising out of and in the course of employment". What was the need of using this salience in Section 52A if the intention was otherwise than which has been indicated by this judgment. In this era of benevolent enactments, and thinking of welfare Stale and an assurance of fundamental rights to citizens, all benevolent enactments have to be interpreted with a broader outlook. If anything is to be interpreted, if anything needs to be interpreted from the codified Section, the interpretation should be always in favour of beneficiaries for whom the enactments have been indicated. The indicator of the interpretation should be always pointing towards the hapless, weaker sections of the society who are thrown in hazardous occupation and collimates by their misfortunes, and on account of lack of facilities the out come of ignorance, poverty and bad traditions of the days of past.
9. Though the learned Commissioner has not given the reason in detail justifying his order, I do not find that the order which has been passed by him in favour of Siara, wife of Siraj Mohd. the respondent happens to be in any way incorrect, improper and illegal. Thus, the appeal stands dismissed with costs. Counsel fee Rs. 1000/- (one thousand).