WESTERN INDIA PLYWOOD LTD. versus SHRI. P. ASHOKAN

Citation: [1997] SUPP. 4 S.C.R. 180 · Decided: 19-09-1997 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: S.B. MAJMUDAR · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

A 
B 
WESTERN INDIA PLYWOOD LTD. 
v. 
SHRI. P. ASHOKAN 
SEPTEMBER 19, 1997 
[S.B. MAJMUDAR AND B.N. KIRPAL, JJ.] 
Labour law-Employees' State Insurance Act, 1948-Ss. 53, 61, and 2 
(8)-Compensation for employment injury, where compensation already 
C granted under ES! Act-Suit for damages by an insured person-Bar under 
Sec. 53-Held, applicable not only to relief under any statute but also to a 
claim in torts-Hence, application under Or. 33 R. l ofCPC seeking permission 
to file such a suit rightly rejected by the trial Court-Civil Procedure Code, 
1908-0r. 33 R.1-Constitution of India, 1950-Art. 136. 
D 
Ss.53-0bject-To save the employer from facing more than one claim 
E 
in relation to the same accident. 
The respondent was an employee in the factory of the appellant-Company. 
While working on the roller mill, the respondent met with an accident and 
one of his hands was amputated. However, the appellant-Company allowed him 
to continue in the service without any reduction in remuneration. The 
Employees' State Insurance Act, 1948 was applicable to the respondent and 
as such the disability benefit was paid to him. The respondent, while in service 
filed an application in the Civil Court under Or. 33 R. 1 of CPC seeking 
permission to file a suit against the appellant for compensation for the injuries 
F sustained by him. The Trial Court, in view of Sec. 53 ofESI Act, dismissed 
the application. 
The respondent thereafter filed an appeal before the High Court. The 
Full Bench of the High Court held that the provision of Sections 53 and 61 of 
G ESI Act did not bar an action by an injured employee under tort for 
compensation against the employer and allowed the appeal. Hence this appeal 
by special leave. 
The respondent opposed the appeal on the ground that Sec. 53 of the 
Act should not be construed in such a way as to prevent an employee from 
H bringing about an action in tort and in the alternative he contended that the 
180 
WESTERN INDIA PLYWOOD LTD. v. P. ASHOKAN 
181 
Supreme Court, in exercise of its jurisdiction under Art. 136 of the A 
Constitution, should not interfere in the present case. 
Allowing the appeal, this Court 
HELD : 1. It is clear that Sec. 53 of the ESI Act disentitles an employee 
who has suffered an employment injury from receiving or recovering B 
compensation or damages under the workmen's compensation Act or any 
other law for the time being in force or otherwise. The use of expression "or 
otherwise" would clearly indicate that this section in not limited to ousting 
the relief claimed only under any statue but the wordings of the section are 
such that an insured person would not be entitled to make a claim in Torts C 
which has the force of law under the ESI Act. Even though the ESI Act is a 
beneficial legislation the legislature had thought it fit to prohibit an insured 
person from receiving or recovering compensation or damages under any 
other law, including torts, in case where the injury had been sustained by 
him is an employment injury. (187-A-C) 
A. Trehan v. Associated Electrical Agencies and Anr., [1996] 4 SCC 255: 
(1996) SCC (L&S) 928; K.S. Vasantha .v. K SRTC, (1982) 60·FJR 118 (Kant) 
and Annapurna v. G.M Karna/aka SRTC, (1984) Lab IC 1355: (1984) ACJ 
238 (Kant), approved. 
Hindustan Aeronautic Ltd., v. P. Venu Perumal, AIR (1972) Mys 255 : 
(1972) ACJ 266, distinguished. 
D 
E 
2. The ESI Act has been enacted to provide certain benefits to the 
employees in case of sickness, maternity and employment injury and to make 
provisions in respect thereof. The claims by the employees against the employer F 
where the relationship of the employer and employee exists are meant to be 
governed by the ESI Act alone. The object of Sec. 53 of the ESI Act, is to save 
the employer from facing more than one claim in relation to the same accident. 
So, the claim of the respondent for damages being barred under Sec. 53 of 
the Act and the Trial Court was right in dismissing the application under Or. G 
33 R.1 of the Code of Civil Procedure. [187-D-E] 
Mangalamma v. Express Newspaper Ltd, AIR (1982) Mad 223 : (1982) 
1 MLJ 149, referred to. 
3. The position of law is clear and concluded and there is no justification H 
182 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1997] SUPP. 4 S.C.R. 
A for the Supreme Court not exercising its jurisdiction under Art. 136 of the 
Constitution to correct the incorrect decision of the High Court on a point of 
law. [187-F] 
A. Trehan v Associated Electrical Agenci
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.