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 Smt. Laxmibai Balaram, widow of deceased Balram Pachayya. Balram was employed as a weaver in New Mahalaxmi Silk Mills (P) Ltd. and was covered under the ESI Act from the day he joined. On 24.11.1984, he complained of neck pain during employment, was admitted to MGM hospital, and died on 4.12.1984. His wages for 21 days in November 1984 were Rs.814.73 at Rs.40.22 per day. The Corporation denied the claim on the ground that Balram's wages exceeded Rs.1000 per month, the then coverage limit, and thus he was not an 'employee' under Section 2(9) of the ESI Act. The widow filed Application (ESI) No.75 of 1985 before the ESI Court, which allowed the claim relying on a Division Bench judgment of the Bombay High Court in Mohammed Ismail Ansari v. E.S.I.C., Bombay, 1979 II LLJ 168, holding that Balram was an employee and his dependents were entitled to benefit from 4.12.1984. The Corporation appealed. The High Court, per Justice Smt. Nishita Mhatre, dismissed the appeal, holding that the ESI Court's order was correct and that the deceased was an employee under Section 2(9) as his daily wage was below the threshold.
Headnote
A) Employees' State Insurance - Definition of Employee - Section 2(9) ESI Act - Wage Threshold - The issue was whether a weaver earning Rs.40.22 per day (total wages Rs.814.73 for 21 days in November 1984) was an 'employee' under Section 2(9) of the ESI Act, despite his monthly wages exceeding Rs.1000. The Court held that the relevant wage for coverage is the daily wage rate, not the monthly total, and since the daily wage was below the threshold, the deceased was an employee and his dependents were entitled to benefit. (Paras 1-4)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the deceased Balram could be considered an 'employee' as defined under Section 2(9) of the Employees' State Insurance Act, 1948, and whether dependants' benefit is payable to his heirs.
Final Decision
Appeal dismissed. Order of ESI Court confirmed. Dependants' benefit payable to Respondent No.1 from 4.12.1984.
Law Points
- Definition of employee under Section 2(9) of ESI Act
- Dependants' benefit
- Wage threshold for coverage
- Daily wage vs monthly wage calculation
