P.B. KRISHNANKUTTY NAIR versus THE REGIONAL DIRECTOR, ESI CORPN. & ANR.

Citation: [2008] 4 S.C.R. 492 · Decided: 07-03-2008 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: TARUN CHATTERJEE · Disposal: Dismissed

Judgment (excerpt)

~ I 
[2008] 4 S.C.R. 492 
A 
P.B. KRISHNANKUTTY NAIR 
V. 
• .... 
THE REGIONAL DIRECTOR, ESI CORPN. & ANR. 
(Civil Appeal No. 6497 of 2001) 
B 
MARCH 7, 2008 
[TARUN CHATTERJEE & HARJIT SINGH BEDI, JJ.] 
Employees State Insurance Act, 1948 - ss.2(9), 2(14) 
• .. 
and 46 - Claim for disability benefit - Eligibility - Appellant 
c ceased to be an employee we.f. 1st October, 1989 as his 
monthly salary exceeded Rs. 16001- from such date - However 
as he had made contributions towards his insurance for the 
period 1st April, 1989 to 30th September, 1989, his 
contribution period was to end on 30th June, 1990 -Appellant 
D met with an accident on 15th June, 1990 and suffered injuries 
- Claim by Appellant for disability benefit under the Act -
Tenability of - Held: Not tenable - As the injury had been 
suffered after the Appellant ceased to be employee, he would 
~ 
,. 
not be entitled to any benefit of disablement notwithstanding 
E 
the fact that his contribution period and his status as an insured 
person continued up to 30th June 1990. 
The cut-off wage fixed under the Employees State 
Insurance Act, 1948 at the relevant time was Rs.1600/- per 
month. Appellant ceased to be an employee w.e.f. 1st 
F October, 1989 as his monthly salary exceeded Rs.1600/-
from such date. However as he had made contributions 
.. 
towards his insurance for the period 1st April, 1989 to 30th 
September, 1989, his contribution period was to end on 
30th June, 1990. 
G 
Appellant met with an accident on 15th June, 1990 
and suffered injuries. He claimed entitlement to benefit of 
disability under the Act on account of such injuries. 
" 
Respondent-ES! Corporation resisted the claim for 
t 
disability benefit on the ground that Appellant had ceased 
H 
492 
P.B KRISHNANKLTTY NAIR v. THE REG. DIRECTOR, 
493 
ESI CORPN. & ANR. 
to be an employee w.e.f. 1st October, 1989, but granted A 
... • 
sickness benefit to Appellant for the period 16th June, 
1990 to 30th June, 1990. Appellant filed application before 
the Employees Insurance Court seeking disability benefit 
under the Act which was allowed. Respondent- ESI 
Corporation filed appeal against the order. High Court B 
allowed the appeal holding that as the accident occurred 
after the claimant-appellant had ceased to be an employee, 
'> 
though within the contribution period, he was not entitled 
t 
to any disability benefit. Hence the present appeal. 
Dismissing the appeal, the Court 
c 
HELD: The only difference between the two 
contesting parties is with regard to the significance of the 
contribution period which was to end on 30th June 1990. 
For determining as to whether an employee was entitled D 
to the benefit under the Act, reference has to be made to 
section 46(c) of the Employees State Insurance Act, 1948 
... 
which specifically provides for two cumulative conditions 
~ 
for its applicability i) the claimant must be an insured 
person and ii) that such an injury must be sustained when 
E 
he was an employee. In the present case as the injury had 
been suffered after the claimant ceased to be employee, 
he would not be entitled to any benefit of disablement 
notwithstanding the fact that his contribution period and 
his status as an insured person continued up to 30th June 
1990. [Para 7] [498-F, G, H; 499-A] 
F 
,,. 
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : C vii Appeal No. 
6497 of 2001. 
From the final JLdgmert and Order dated 28.02.2000 
of the f-l'.gh Court of Kerala at Ernakulam in M.F.A. No. 169 G 
of 1992. 
~ 
C Jayaraj and Malini Poduval for the Appellant. 
C.S. Rajar. V~. l="rancis and Arupar: Mishra for the 
H 
494 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
(2008] 4 S.C.R. 
A Respondents. 
f 
.... 
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by 
HARJIT SINGH BEDI, J. 1. This appeal arises out of the 
following facts. 
B 
2. The appellant who was a covered employee under the 
ESI scheme met with an accident in the course of his 
employment on 15th June 1990. An accident report was sent by 
the employer respondent No.2 in the present appeal to the 
~ ... 
c 
respondent Corporation. The Corporation however refused to 
treat the injuries sustained, as injuries suffered during 
employment on the plea that on the date of the accident the 
employee was not covered under the ESI scheme. It was also 
communicated to the employee by a communication dated 4th 
December 1990 that he had ceased to be an employee with 
D effect from 1st October 1989 and therefore he would not be 
entitled to any benefit for the di

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.