Case Note & Summary
The appeal by special leave arose from a judgment of the Bombay High Court which had set aside the order of a learned Single Judge and the order of the Commissioner for Workmen's Compensation, and dismissed the appellant's application for compensation. The appellant was employed by Respondent No.1 for repairing television sets. On July 17, 1987, while repairing a television set, a component burst, causing injury to his face and loss of vision in his left eye. As an employee and insured person under the Employees' State Insurance Act, 1948, he received ESI benefits for this employment injury. Subsequently, in September 1991, he served a notice on Respondent No.1 demanding Rs. 7 lakhs as compensation, followed by Application No. 108/C-18 of 1992 before the Commissioner for Workmen's Compensation, Bombay under Section 22(2) of the Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923, claiming Rs. 1,06,785 with penalty, penal interest and costs. Respondent No.1 objected to maintainability citing the bar under Section 53 of the ESI Act. The Commissioner overruled the objection, following the Full Bench decision of the Kerala High Court in P. Asokan v. Western Indian Plywoods Ltd., on the ground that the ESI Act, being welfare legislation, could not bar workmen from claiming more advantageous benefits under the Workmen's Compensation Act. Respondent No.1 then filed Writ Petition No. 1406 of 1993; a learned Single Judge dismissed it summarily on the ground of alternative remedy under Section 30 of the Workmen's Compensation Act. Respondent No.1 appealed, and a Division Bench of the High Court, after considering challenges to the validity of Section 53 under Article 14 and legislative competence, upheld the validity of Section 53 and held that the application was not maintainable due to the statutory bar, allowing the appeal. Before the Supreme Court, the appellant contended that his claim under the Workmen's Compensation Act was de hors the contract of service and based on the law of torts, so the bar under Section 53 did not apply. He relied on an observation in Regional Director E.S.I. Corporation v. Francis De Costa and on P. Asokan. The Supreme Court analyzed the scheme of the ESI Act and the Workmen's Compensation Act, noting that the ESI Act is a later, wider and more comprehensive welfare legislation. It examined Sections 53 and 61 of the ESI Act and found that Section 53, after its substitution, creates an absolute bar in clear and express terms against receiving or recovering any compensation or damages under the Workmen's Compensation Act or any other law in respect of an employment injury. The Court reasoned that the legislature intended to substitute the remedy under the ESI Act for other remedies, and that the fact that ESI benefits are paid periodically rather than as a lump sum does not invalidate the bar. It held that the bar applies even to claims based on the law of torts or otherwise. Consequently, the Supreme Court upheld the High Court's decision and dismissed the appeal, holding that the appellant's application under the Workmen's Compensation Act was not maintainable.
Headnote
A) Labour Law - Employees' State Insurance Act, 1948 - Bar on claiming compensation under other laws - Section 53, Employees' State Insurance Act, 1948 - The Court held that Section 53 creates an absolute bar against an insured person or dependents receiving or recovering any compensation or damages under the Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923 or any other law for an employment injury - Held that the claim under Workmen's Compensation Act was not maintainable. B) Statutory Interpretation - Bar in clear and express terms - Legislative intent - Sections 53 and 61, Employees' State Insurance Act, 1948 - The Court reasoned that when a bar is created in clear and express terms, it is not permissible to infer a different intention by referring to the previous history of legislation; the ESI Act being a later and more comprehensive welfare legislation intended to substitute periodical payments for lump sum compensation - Held that the bar extends to claims based on law of torts or otherwise. C) Comparative Analysis - Employees' State Insurance Act versus Workmen's Compensation Act - Scope and benefits - Sections 46(c), 53, 61, Employees' State Insurance Act, 1948; Sections 3(1), 22(2), Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923 - The Court compared the two Acts and found that ESI Act provides wider coverage and more substantial benefits, albeit by periodical payments rather than lump sum - Held that the appellant, having availed ESI benefits, could not maintain a separate claim under the Workmen's Compensation Act.
Issue of Consideration
Whether an insured person under the Employees' State Insurance Act, 1948 is barred by Section 53 from claiming compensation under the Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923 for an employment injury, even if the claim is framed as based on the law of torts and de hors the contract of service.
Final Decision
The Supreme Court upheld the High Court's decision and dismissed the appeal. It held that Section 53 of the Employees' State Insurance Act, 1948 creates an absolute bar against receiving or recovering any compensation or damages under the Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923 or any other law in respect of an employment injury. The appellant's application under the Workmen's Compensation Act was therefore not maintainable.
Law Points
- Section 53 of ESI Act creates an absolute bar against receiving or recovering compensation or damages under Workmen's Compensation Act or any other law for employment injury
- ESI Act is a self-contained code for insured employees
- legislative intent to substitute periodical payments under ESI for lump sum compensation
- bar applies to claims based on law of torts as well
