LexDHROPADABAI AND OTHERS versus M/S. TECHNOCRAFT TOOLINGS
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
[2015] 3 S.C.R. 921 DHROPADABAI AND OTHERS v. M/S. TECHNOCRAFT TOOLINGS (Civil Appeal No.8155 of 2014) MARCH 19, 2015 A B [DIPAK MISRA AND PRAFULLA C. PANT, JJ.] Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923 - Compensation C under - Entitlement to - Employee dying in the course of employment- Said employee insured under the 1948 Act - Claim of compensation by his legal heirs - Held: Once an employee is an insured person under section 2(14) of 0 the 1948 Act, neither he nor his dependents entitled to get · any compensation or damages from the employer under the 1923 Act- Employees' State Insurance Act, 1948- s. 2(14). Dismissing the appeal, the Court E HELD: 1.1 Once an employee is an "insured person" under Section 2(14) of the Employees' State Insurance Act, 1948, neither he nor his dependents would be entitled to get any compensation or damages from the employer under the Workmen's Compensation F Act, 1923, as the plain language used in the Act clearly conveys so. Therefore, there is no flaw in the view expressed by the High Court that the legal heirs would not be entitled to get compensation under the 1923 Act as he was an insured person. [Para 12] [928-C-D, F-G] G 1.2 While granting leave, this Court directed the respondent to deposit Rs.4 lacs in the Registry of this 921 H 922 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2015] 3 S.C.R. A Court within four weeks and permitted the appellants to withdraw the said sum on furnishing a personal bond. The amount has been deposited by the employer and also has been withdrawn by the legal heirs of the deceased employee. Though the respondent is getting B the benefits under the 1948 Act, yet it is not intended that the amount that has already been withdrawn by the legal heirs of the deceased-employee, should be recovered by the employer by way of deducting the periodical sum that is paid to the family members of the C deceased employee. [Para 12] [928-E-G] Jyothi Ademma vs. Plant Engineer, Ne/lore & Another 2006 (3) Suppl. SCR 400: (2006) 5 SCC 513; A. Trehan vs. Associated Electrical Agencies and Another 1996 (2) D Suppl. SCR 728 : (1996) 4 SCC 255; Regional Director, ES/ Corporation vs. Francis De Costa 1992 (3) SCR 23: (1993) Supp. 4 SCC 100; P. Asokan vs. Western Indian Plywoods Ltd., Cannanore AIR 1987 Kerala 103; Bharagath Engineering vs. R. Ranganayaki and Another 2002 (5) E Suppl. SCR 642: (2003) 2 SCC 138; National Insurance Company Ltd. vs. Hamida Khatoon and Others 2009 (8) SCR 248:(2009) 13 SCC 361 - referred to. Case Law Reference F 2006 (3) Suppl. SCR 400 Referred to. Para 4 1996 (2) Suppl. SCR 728 Referred to. Para 5 1992 (3) SCR 23 Referred to. Para 9 G AIR 1987 Kerala 103 Referred to. Para 9 2002 (5) Suppl. SCR 642 Referred to. Paras 10, 11 2009 (8) SCR 248 Referred to. Para 11 H DHROPADABAI AND OTHERS v. TECHNOCRAFT 923 TOOLINGS CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. A 8155 of 2014. From the Judgment and Order dated 16.07.2012 of the High Court of Bombay Bench at Aurangabad in FA No. 462 of 2011. B Sandeep Singh Tiwari, Yogendra Kumar Dubey and Shiv Sagar Tiwar, for the Appellants. Shashibhushan P. Adgaonkar, Rana Sandip B. (for S- iegal Association) for the Respondent. C The Judgment of the Court was delivered by DIPAK MISRA, J. 1. The present appeal, by special leave, is directed against the judgment and order dated 16th D July, 2012, passed by the High Court of Bombay Bench at Aurangabad in First Appeal No.462 of 2011, whereby the High Court has allowed the appeal and set aside the award passed by the Commissioner under the Workmen's . Compensation Act, 1923, (for short, 'the 1923 Act'). E 2. The facts which are requisite to be stated are that the appellants, the legal heirs of Ambadas Lahane, filed an application for grant of compensation under the 1923 Act before the labour Court, Maharashtra at Aurangabad, F forming the subject matter of Application No.51 of 2006. It was asserted in the application that the appellant No.1, Dhropadabai, is the wife and the other respondents were minor children of the deceased-employee, who had suffered a chest pain at the work place about 8.30 a.m. on 2nd April, G 2005. He was immediately taken to the Medical College Hospital, Ghati, Aurangabad, where he was declared dead. After the death took place, the appellant No. 1 approached the authorities of the respondent-employer for grant of compensation. As the same was not granted, she
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.