M/S. BHARAGATH ENGINEERING versus R. RANGANAYAKI AND ANR.

Citation: [2002] SUPP. 5 S.C.R. 642 · Decided: 20-12-2002 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: S.S.M. QUADRI · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

A 
MIS. BHARAGATH ENGINEERING 
I 
' 
V. 
R. RANGANA Y AKI AND ANR. 
DECEMBER 20, 2002 
B 
[SYED SHAH MOHAMMED QUADRI AND 
ARIJIT PASA VAT, JJ.] 
Employees' State Insurance Act, 1948--Sections 2(14), 53-Death of 
c employee during course of employment with employer-Registration with 
Insurance Corporation after the death of employee-Proceedings under 
Compensation Act-Applicability of the Insurance Act on the employee-Held, 
employee is 'insured person' under the Act-Date of payment of contribution 
is not very material-Date of commencement is from the date of employment 
of the employee-Proceeding under Compensation Act barred-Employees' 
D State Insurance (Central) Rules, 1950-Rule 58(2)(b)(u)-Employees' State 
Insurance (General) Regulations, 1950-Workmen 's Compensation Act, 1923. 
Deceased employee died in the course of his employment with the 
appellant-employer. Application for registration with Employees State 
Insurance Corporation for the purpose of insurance was submitted and 
E registration was granted after the death of the employee. Respondent-
claimant filed application under Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923. 
Maintainability of the proceeding was questioned on the ground that 
entertainment ofsuch application was barred by Seetion 53 of Employees' 
State Insurance Act, 1948. Commissioner for workmen Compensation held 
F that deceased employee was covered under Insurance Act and was an 
"insured person" as contemplated under Section 2(14) of Insurance Act. 
In appeal High Court held that Section 53 of Insurance Act was not 
applicable and deceased employee could not be treated to be an insured 
person; and that since registration was outcome of contract between the 
employee and the Corporation, employee could be covered by the benefits 
G of the Insurance Act only when registration is granted to him and not at 
an anterior point of time. Hence the present appeal. 
Allowing the appeal, the Court 
HELD: I.I. The deceased employee was an 'insured person', as 
-. 
H defined. in section 2(14) of Employees' State Insurance Act, 1948. As the 
642 
BHARAGA TH ENGINEERING v. R. RANGANA YAK! [ARIJIT PASAYAT, J.] 
643 
deceased employee has suffered an employment injury as defined under A 
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 Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923 were exduded statutorily. The 
High Court was not justified in holding otherwise. The benefits shall be 
worked out by the Corporation and shall be extended to the eligible B 
persons. 1647-C, D, El 
' 
Harrisson Malayalam Pvt. ltd. 119931 4 SCC 361 and £.S./. 
Corporation v. Hotel Kalpaka International, 119931 2 SCC 9, relied on. 
1.2. Crucial expression in section 2(14) of the Act is 'are or were 
payable'. It is the obligation of the employer to pay the contribution from C 
the date the Insurance Act applies to the factory or the establishment. That 
being the position the date of payment of contribution is really not very 
material. In fact, Section 38 of Insurance Act, casts a statutory obligation 
on the employer to insure its employees. That being a statutory obligation, 
the date of commencement has to be from the date of employment of the D 
concerned employee. 1645-H; 646-B, q 
Employees' State Insurance Corporation v. Harrison Malayalam 
limited, 1199819sec74, relied on. 
2. The scheme of the Insurance Act, Employees' State Insurance E 
(Central) Rules, 1950 and Employees' State Insurance (General) 
Regulations, 1950 clearly spell out that the insurance covered under the 
Act is distinct and different from the contract of insurance in general. 
1646-CI 
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 8623 of f 
2002. 
From the Judgment and Order dated 15.12.1999 of the Madras High 
Court in LPA 222/99. 
K.V. Viswanathan, Kunwar Ajit Mohan Singh and K.V. Venkataraman G 
for the Appellant. 
K.B. Sounder Rajan and V.J. Francis for the Respondents. 
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by 
PASAYAT, J. Leave granted. 
H 
644 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2002) SUPP. 5 S.C.R. 
A 
The challenge in this appeal is to a Division Bench judgments of the 
High Court at Madras. The point involved, though short, is interesting and 
relates to the question as to who can be treated as an 'insured person' under 
Section 2(14) of the Employees' State Insurance Act, 1948 in short, 'the 
Act'. 
B 
A brief reference to the factual position, which is almost
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.