LexMR. A TREHAN versus M/S. ASSOCIATED ELECTRICAL AGENCIES AND ANR.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
A B MR. A TREHAN v. M/S. ASSOCIATED ELECTRICAL AGENCIES AND ANR. 10 MAY, 1996 [S.C. AGGARWAL, G.T. NANA WAT!, JJ.J Labour Law: C Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923-Section 22(2)-<:ompensa- tio~laim of-Held, 11ot maintainable i11 view of bar created by Section 53 of Employees State Insurance Act, 1948. Employees State Insurance Act, 1948-Sectio11s 46(c), 53 & 6J-Com- pe11sation-Bar to claim, under any other law-Held, Bar created by the D Section is absolute and the clear and unequivocal language of the Section suggests that it takes away the right of the employee to claim compensation under Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923-Legislative intention-Held could not have been, to create another remedy and a fomm for claiming compensation-Employees State Insurance (Central) Rules, 195o-Rules 54, E 57, 58 & 60. The Appellant who was insured under the Employees State In- surance Act (hereinafter called ESI) employed by Respondent No. 1, approached Employees State Insurance Corporation, after he suffered an injury in the course of employment. He also filed application for compen- F sation under Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923. Respondent 1 raised objection that the application could not be maintained as it was barred by Section 53 of E.S.l. Act. The objection was overruled by the Commis- sioner. G Respondent approached High Court by way of writ petition which was summarily dismissed by the Single Judge on the ground that he had alternative remedy by way of an appeal under Section 30 of Workmen's Compensation Act. 1923. Respondent filed appeal before Division Bench alongwith other ap- H peals challenging the validity of Section 53 of E.S.l. Act on the ground that 72S • A. illEHAN v. ASSOCIATED ELECillICALAGENCJES 729 it \\<°3.S beyond legislative competence of Parliament. The Division Bench of A High Court upheld the validity of Section 53 and allowed the appeal holding that in view of the bar created by Section 53 of E.S.r. Act, the application for compensation by the appellant was not maintainable. fn appeal to this Court, it was contended.that the claim for compen- sation was de lwi:< the contract of service and was based on the law of torts B and thus the bar created by Section 53 of E.S.l. Act was not at all •. applicable. Dismissing the appeal, this Court HELD: I. The High Court was right in holding that in view of the bar created by Section 53 of the ESf Act, the application for compensation filed by the appellant under the Workmen's Compensation Act was not main- tainable. The bar is absolute as can be seen from the use of words "shall c not be entitled to receive or recover", ''whether from the employer of the insured person or from any other person", "any compensation or damages" D and "under the Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923 (8 of 1923), or any other law for the time being in force or otherwise." The words employed by the legislature are clear and unequivocal. When such a bar is created in clear and express terms, it would neither be permissible nor proper to infer a different intention by refering to the previous history of the legislation. That would amount to by-passing the bar and defeating the object of the provision. In view of the clear language of the Section, there is no justifica- tion in interpreting or construing it as not taking away the right of the workman who is an insured person and an employee under the E.S.l. Act to claim compensation under Workmen's Compensation Act. E [736-C; 735-H; 736-A-B] F Regional Director, E.S.I. Corpor<Jtion and Anr. v. Francis De Costa and Am:, [1992] 3 SCR 23 & P. Ashokan v. Western Indian Plywoods Ltd., Cannanore, AIR (1987) Kerala 103 ................... ., distinguished. Mangalamma v. Express Newspapers Ltd., AIR (1982) Madras 223 & G K.S. Vasantha v. Kamataka State Road Transport Corporation, (1982) FJR (vol. 60) P. 118 & Smt. Annapura v. General Manager, Kamataka State Tra11sp01t Corporation, (1984) Labour and Industrial Cases 1335 .......... , referred· to. · ' • 2. A comparison ohhe relevant provisions of the two Acts makes it .H 730 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1996] SUPP. 2 S.C.R. A dear that both the Acts provide for compensation to a Workmen/employee for personal injury caused lo him by accident arising out of and in the course of his employment. The E.S.I. Act is a later Act and has a wider coverage. It is more comprehensive. It also provides for more compensa- tion than what a workman wou
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.