Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 11 (0.29 seconds)The Employees' State Insurance Act, 1948
The Employee's Compensation Act, 1923
Bharagath Engineering vs R. Ranganayaki And Anr on 20 December, 2002
“The deceased employee was clearly an
'insured person', as defined in the Act. As
the deceased employee has suffered an
employment injury as defined under Section
2(8) of the Act and there is no dispute that
he was in employment of the employer, by
operation of Section 53 of the Act,
proceedings under the Compensation Act were
excluded statutorily. The High Court was not
justified in holding otherwise. We find that
the Corporation has filed an affidavit
indicating that the benefits under the Act
shall be extended to the persons entitled
under the Act. The benefits shall be worked
3(1993) Supp. 4 SCC 100
4 AIR 1987 Kerala 103
5(2003) 2 SCC 138
C.A.8155/14
7
out by the Corporation and shall be extended
to the eligible persons.”
In National Insurance Company Ltd. vs. Hamida
Khatoon and Others6, reference has been made to A. Trehan's
case, as well as Bharagath Engineering's (supra) and as it
appears to us, the later Bench has concurred with the view
expressed in the earlier case.
National Insurance Co. Ltd vs Hamida Khatoon & Ors on 6 May, 2009
“The deceased employee was clearly an
'insured person', as defined in the Act. As
the deceased employee has suffered an
employment injury as defined under Section
2(8) of the Act and there is no dispute that
he was in employment of the employer, by
operation of Section 53 of the Act,
proceedings under the Compensation Act were
excluded statutorily. The High Court was not
justified in holding otherwise. We find that
the Corporation has filed an affidavit
indicating that the benefits under the Act
shall be extended to the persons entitled
under the Act. The benefits shall be worked
3(1993) Supp. 4 SCC 100
4 AIR 1987 Kerala 103
5(2003) 2 SCC 138
C.A.8155/14
7
out by the Corporation and shall be extended
to the eligible persons.”
In National Insurance Company Ltd. vs. Hamida
Khatoon and Others6, reference has been made to A. Trehan's
case, as well as Bharagath Engineering's (supra) and as it
appears to us, the later Bench has concurred with the view
expressed in the earlier case.
Jyothi Ademma vs Plant Engineer, Nellore & Anr on 11 July, 2006
The labour Court considering the material brought on
record and the decision of this Court in Jyothi Ademma vs.
Plant Engineer, Nellore & Another1, came to hold that the
deceased-employee had died in course of employment while
remaining on duty with the respondent-employer. Thereafter,
it referred to the applicability of the 1923 Act in the
backdrop of Section 53 of the 1948 Act and came to hold that
there was no justification to deny the compensation under the
1923 Act solely because the employee was an insured person
under the 1948 Act. Being of this view, the labour Court
directed that a sum of Rs.4,07,700/- shall be awarded towards
the payment of compensation on the death of deceased Ambadas
Lahane to his legal heirs. It also stipulated that if the
employer failed to pay such compensation within a stipulated
period, that is, one month, it will be open to the legal
heirs of the deceased-employee to file an application under
Section 4(a) of the 1923 Act.
Section 53 in The Employees' State Insurance Act, 1948 [Entire Act]
Section 4 in The Employee's Compensation Act, 1923 [Entire Act]
Section 2 in The Competition Act, 2002 [Entire Act]
Regional Director, E.S.I Corpn. And Anr vs Francis De Costa And Anr on 5 May, 1992
“A comparison of the relevant provisions of
the two Acts makes it clear that both the
Acts provide for compensation to a
workman/employee for personal injury caused
to him by accident arising out of and in the
course of his employment. The ESI is a later
Act and has a wider coverage. It is more
comprehensive. It also provides for more
compensation than what a workman would get
under the Workmen’s Compensation Act. The
benefits which an employee can get under the
ESI Act are more substantial than the
benefits which he can get under the Workmen’s
Compensation Act. The only disadvantage, if
at all it can be called a disadvantage, is
that he will get compensation under the ESI
Act by way of periodical payments and not in
a lump sum as under the Workmen’s
Compensation Act. If the Legislature in its
wisdom thought it better to provide for
C.A.8155/14
6
periodical payments rather than lump sum
compensation its wisdom cannot be doubted.
Even if it is assured that the workmen had a
better right under the Workman’s Compensation
Act in this behalf it was open to the
Legislature to take away or modify that
right. While enacting the ESI Act the
intention of the Legislature could not have
been to create another remedy and a forum for
claiming compensation for an injury received
by the employee by accident arising out of
and in the course of his employment.”
Be it noted, the Court distinguished the decision
rendered in Regional Director, ESI Corporation vs. Francis
De Costa3, and overruled the Full Bench decision of the High
Court of Kerala in P. Asokan vs. Western Indian Plywoods
Ltd., Cannanore4.