Case Note & Summary
The case involves an appeal by the Regional Director of the Employees' State Insurance Corporation against an order of the ESI Court granting dependants' benefit to the widow of a deceased worker. The deceased, Balram Pachayya, was employed as a weaver in New Mahalaxmi Silk Mills (P) Ltd. He was covered under the ESI Act from the date of his employment. On 24.11.1984, he complained of neck pain during work and was admitted to MGM hospital, where he died on 4.12.1984. His wages for 21 days of work in November 1984 were Rs.814.73 at the rate of Rs.40.22 per day. His wife, Smt. Laxmibai Balaram, claimed dependants' benefit from the ESI Corporation, which was denied by letter dated 6.4.1985 on the ground that Balram was not an employee under Section 2(9) of the ESI Act because his wages exceeded Rs.1000 per month, the then wage limit for coverage. Aggrieved, the widow filed Application (ESI) No.75 of 1985 before the ESI Court. The ESI Court, relying on the Division Bench judgment of the Bombay High Court in Mohammed Ismail Ansari v. E.S.I.C., Bombay, 1979 II LLJ 168, held that the deceased was an employee under Section 2(9) and that his dependents were entitled to benefit under the Act and regulations from 4.12.1984. The ESI Corporation appealed to the High Court. The High Court, after hearing the appellant's counsel, Mr. H.V. Mehta, who argued that an employee drawing more than Rs.1000 per month is not entitled to benefit, considered the short question of whether the deceased could be considered an employee under Section 2(9). The High Court upheld the ESI Court's order, implicitly agreeing that the wage limit should be calculated per day and not per month, and that the deceased's wages did not exceed the limit. The appeal was dismissed, affirming the entitlement of the dependents to dependants' benefit.
Headnote
A) Employees State Insurance - Definition of Employee - Section 2(9) of Employees State Insurance Act, 1948 - Wage Limit - The deceased Balram was employed as a weaver and worked for 21 days in November 1984 earning Rs.814.73 at Rs.40.22 per day. The ESI Corporation denied dependants' benefit on the ground that his wages exceeded Rs.1000 per month. The ESI Court held that the deceased was an employee under Section 2(9) and dependents were entitled to benefit. The High Court upheld the decision, relying on the Division Bench judgment in Mohammed Ismail Ansari v. E.S.I.C., Bombay, 1979 II LLJ 168, that the wage limit is to be calculated per day and not per month. (Paras 1-4) B) Employees State Insurance - Dependants' Benefit - Section 46 of Employees State Insurance Act, 1948 - The dependents of a deceased employee are entitled to dependants' benefit if the deceased was an employee under Section 2(9). The ESI Court allowed the application and the High Court affirmed, holding that the deceased's wages did not exceed the prescribed limit. (Paras 3-4)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the deceased Balram was an employee as defined under Section 2(9) of the Employees State Insurance Act, 1948 and whether his dependents are entitled to dependants' benefit.
Final Decision
The High Court dismissed the appeal, upholding the ESI Court's order that the deceased was an employee under Section 2(9) and that his dependents are entitled to dependants' benefit under the ESI Act and regulations from 4.12.1984.
Law Points
- Definition of employee under Section 2(9) of ESI Act
- Wage limit for coverage
- Dependants' benefit
- Calculation of wages per day vs per month
