DHROPADABAI AND OTHERSversusM/S. TECHNOCRAFT TOOLINGS

                    [2015] 3 S.C.R. 921


              DHROPADABAI AND OTHERS                         A

                             v.

            M/S. TECHNOCRAFT TOOLINGS

              (Civil Appeal No.8155 of 2014)                 B

                     MARCH 19, 2015

      [DIPAK MISRA AND PRAFULLA C. PANT, JJ.]

      Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923 - Compensation C
  under - Entitlement to - Employee dying in the course of
  employment- Said employee insured under the 1948 Act
  - Claim of compensation by his legal heirs - Held: Once
  an employee is an insured person under section 2(14) of
                                                              0
  the 1948 Act, neither he nor his dependents entitled to get
· any compensation or damages from the employer under the
   1923 Act- Employees' State Insurance Act, 1948- s. 2(14).

     Dismissing the appeal, the Court
                                                             E
    HELD: 1.1 Once an employee is an "insured
person" under Section 2(14) of the Employees' State
Insurance Act, 1948, neither he nor his dependents
would be entitled to get any compensation or damages
from the employer under the Workmen's Compensation F
Act, 1923, as the plain language used in the Act clearly
conveys so. Therefore, there is no flaw in the view
expressed by the High Court that the legal heirs would
not be entitled to get compensation under the 1923 Act
as he was an insured person. [Para 12] [928-C-D, F-G] G

     1.2 While granting leave, this Court directed the
 respondent to deposit Rs.4 lacs in the Registry of this

                            921                              H
922       SUPREME COURT REPORTS              [2015] 3 S.C.R.


A Court within four weeks and permitted the appellants
  to withdraw the said sum on furnishing a personal
  bond. The amount has been deposited by the employer
  and also has been withdrawn by the legal heirs of the
  deceased employee. Though the respondent is getting
B the benefits under the 1948 Act, yet it is not intended
  that the amount that has already been withdrawn by the
  legal heirs of the deceased-employee, should be
  recovered by the employer by way of deducting the
  periodical sum that is paid to the family members of the
C deceased employee. [Para 12] [928-E-G]

      Jyothi Ademma vs. Plant Engineer, Ne/lore & Another
  2006 (3) Suppl. SCR 400: (2006) 5 SCC 513; A. Trehan
  vs. Associated Electrical Agencies and Another 1996 (2)
D Suppl. SCR 728 : (1996) 4 SCC 255; Regional Director,
  ES/ Corporation vs. Francis De Costa 1992 (3) SCR 23:
  (1993) Supp. 4 SCC 100; P. Asokan vs. Western Indian
  Plywoods Ltd., Cannanore AIR 1987 Kerala 103; Bharagath
  Engineering vs. R. Ranganayaki and Another 2002 (5)
E Suppl. SCR 642: (2003) 2 SCC 138; National Insurance
  Company Ltd. vs. Hamida Khatoon and Others 2009 (8)
  SCR 248:(2009) 13 SCC 361 - referred to.

                     Case Law Reference
F
      2006 (3) Suppl. SCR 400 Referred to.         Para 4

      1996 (2) Suppl. SCR 728 Referred to.         Para 5

      1992 (3) SCR 23         Referred to.         Para 9
G
      AIR 1987 Kerala 103     Referred to.         Para 9

      2002 (5) Suppl. SCR 642 Referred to.    Paras 10, 11

      2009 (8) SCR 248        Referred to.       Para 11
H
  DHROPADABAI AND OTHERS v. TECHNOCRAFT                     923
                TOOLINGS

    CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No.            A
 8155 of 2014.

     From the Judgment and Order dated 16.07.2012 of the
 High Court of Bombay Bench at Aurangabad in FA No. 462
 of 2011.                                                     B

     Sandeep Singh Tiwari, Yogendra Kumar Dubey and
 Shiv Sagar Tiwar, for the Appellants.

     Shashibhushan P. Adgaonkar, Rana Sandip B. (for S-
 iegal Association) for the Respondent.                 C

     The Judgment of the Court was delivered by

       DIPAK MISRA, J. 1. The present appeal, by special
  leave, is directed against the judgment and order dated 16th D
  July, 2012, passed by the High Court of Bombay Bench at
  Aurangabad in First Appeal No.462 of 2011, whereby the
  High Court has allowed the appeal and set aside the award
  passed by the Commissioner under the Workmen's
. Compensation Act, 1923, (for short, 'the 1923 Act').         E

     2. The facts which are requisite to be stated are that
 the appellants, the legal heirs of Ambadas Lahane, filed an
 application for grant of compensation under the 1923 Act
 before the labour Court, Maharashtra at Aurangabad, F
 forming the subject matter of Application No.51 of 2006. It
 was asserted in the application that the appellant No.1,
 Dhropadabai, is the wife and the other respondents were
 minor children of the deceased-employee, who had suffered
 a chest pain at the work place about 8.30 a.m. on 2nd April, G
 2005. He was immediately taken to the Medical College
 Hospital, Ghati, Aurangabad, where he was declared dead.
 After the death took place, the appellant No. 1 approached
 the authorities of the respondent-employer for grant of
 compensation. As the same was not granted, she along with H
. 924        SUPREME COURT REPORTS                [2015] 3 S.C.R.


  A     her children, was compelled to move the labour Court. ·

         3. Before the labour Court, the employer, the
    respondent herein, took two fold stand, namely, (i) that the
    legal heirs of the deceased-employee were not entitled to
  B get any compensation under the 1923 Act as the deceased-
    employee was an insured person under the Employees'
    State Insurance Act, 1948 (for short, 'the 1948 Act'), and
    (ii) the accident did not occur during course. of his
    employment as the death took place due to coronary
  C disorder, which has nothing to do with the work place. The
    labour Court framed two principal issues, namely, whether
    the accident had occurred during course of employment of
    the deceased-employee, and whether the legal heirs were
    entitled for grant of compensation amounting to Rs.3 lacs
  D along with 50% penalty and interest at the rate of 18% per
    annum on the total amount of compensation from the date
    of accident till realization of compensation amount as per
    law.

  E     4. The labour Court considering the material brought
    on record and the decision of this Court in Jvothi Ademma
    vs. Plant Engineer. Ne/lore & Anothert, came to hold that
    the deceased-employee had died in course of employment
    while remaining on duty with the respondent-employer.
  F Thereafter, it referred to the applicability of the 1923 Act in
    the backdrop of Section 53 of the 1948 Act and came to
    hold that there was no justification to deny the
    compensation under the 1923 Act solely because the
  G employee was an insured person under the 1948 Act. Being
    of this view, the labour Court directed that a sum of
    Rs.4,07,700/- shall be awarded towards the payment of
    compensation on the death of deceased Ambadas Lahane

  H 1 (2006J 5 sec 513
  DHROPADABAI AND OTHERS v. TECHNOCRAFT                         925
         TOOLINGS [DIPAK MISRA, J.]

to his legal heirs. It also stipulated that if the employer failed A
to pay such compensation within a stipulated period, that
is, one month, it will be open to the legal heirs of the
deceased-employee to file an application under Section 4(a)
of the 1923 Act.
                                                                   B
     5. Being grieved by the aforesaid award, the employer
moved the High Court and reiterated both the contentions.
The High Court analyzing the evidence on record and the
stand put forth by the employer affirmed the view expressed
by the labour Court that the deceased was an employee C
under the respondent-firm and he has breathed his last
during the course of employment. As far as the applicability
of the 1923 Act is concerned, the learned Single Judge
opined on the basis of the decision rendered by this Court
in A. Trehan vs. Associated Electrical Agencies and D
Another- that the legal heirs would not be entitled to get
 compensation under the 1923 Act as he was an insured
 person.

   6. We have heard Mr. Sandeep Singh Tiwari, learned             E
counsel for the appellants and Mr. Shashibhushan P.
Adgaonkar, learned counsel for the respondent.

     7. The status of the employee and the factum of his
breathing last during the course of employment, cannot be F
called in question as it hinges on the facts and we find that
the approach of the labour Court, as well as of the High
Court on this score is absolutely infallible. Therefore, the
only question that remains for consideration is whether the
High Court is justified in denying the benefit under the 1923 G
Act. In this context, we may refer to Section 53 of the 1948
Act, which reads as under:


2 (1996) 4 sec 255                                                H
926      SUPREME COURT REPORTS               (2015] 3 S.C.R.


A      "53. Bar against receiving or recovery of compensation
       or damages under any other law.- An insured person
       or his dependents shall not be entitled to receive or
       recover, whether from the employer of the insured
       person or from any other person, any compensation
B      or damages under the Workmen's Compensation Act,
       1923 (8 of 1923), or any other law for the time being
       in force or otherwise, in respect of an employment
       injury sustained by the insured person as an
       employment injury sustained by the insured person as
c      an employee under this Act."

       8. The aforesaid provision came to be interpreted by
  a two-Judge Bench in A. Trehan's case, wherein the Court
  after reproducing the said provision and taking note of the
D definition of workman as provided under Section 2(1)(n)
  of the 1923 Act, came to hold as follows:

       "A comparison of the relevant provisions of the two
       Acts makes it clear that both the Acts provide for
E      compensation to a workman/employee for personal
       injury caused to him by accident arising out of and in
       the course of his employment. The ESI is a later Act
       and has a wider coverage. It is more comprehensive.
       It also provides for more compensation than what a
F      workman would get under the Workmen's
       Compensation Act. The benefits which an employee
       can get under the ESI Act are more substantial than
       the benefits which he can get under the Workmen's
       Compensation Act. The only disadvantage, if at all it
G      can be called a disadvantage, is that he will get
       compensation under the ESI Act by way of periodical
       payments and not in a lump sum as under the
       Workmen's Compensation Act. If the Legislature in its
       wisdom thought it better to provide for periodical
H
   DHROPADABAI AND OTHERS v. TECHNOCRAFT                    927
          TOOLINGS [DIPAK MISRA, J.]

     payments rather than lump sum compensation its A
     wisdom cannot be doubted. Even if it is assured that
     the workmen had a better right under the Workman's
     Compensation Act in this behalf it was open to the
     Legislature to take away or modify that right. While
     enacting the ESI Act the intention of the Legislature B
     could not have been to create another remedy and a
     forum for claiming compensation for an injury received
     by the employee by accident arising out of and in the
     course of his employment."
                                                             c
     9. Be it noted, the Court distinguished the decision
rendered in Regional Director, ES/ Corporation vs.
Francis De Costa1, and overruled the Full Bench decision
of the High Court of Kerala in P. Asokan vs. Western
Indian Plywoods Ltd., Cannanore!.                            D

   10. In Bharagath Engineering vs. R. Ranqanayaki
pnd Another-, a two-J:.idge Bench has ruled thus:

     "The deceased employee was clearly an 'insured E
     person', as defined in the Act. As the deceased
     employee has suffered an employment injury as
     defined under Section 2(8) of the Act and there is no
     dispute that he was in employment of the employer,
     by operation of Section 53 of the Act, proceedings F
     under the Compensation Act were excluded statutorily.
     The High Court was not justified in holding otherwise.
     We find that the Corporation has filed an affidavit
     indicating that the benefits under the Act shall be
                                                            G

3 (1993) Supp. 4   sec 100
4 AIR 1987 Kera la 103

5 (2003) 2   sec 138                                         H
928         SUPREME COURT REPORTS               [2015] 3 S.C.R.


A          extended to the persons entitled under the Act. The
           benefits shall be worked out by the Corporation and
           shall be extended to the eligible persons."

       11. In National Insurance Company Ltd. vs. Hamida
B Khatoon and Others•, reference has been made to A.
  Trehan's case, as well as Bharagath Engineering's (supra)
  and as it appears to us, the later Bench has concurred
  with the view expressed in the earlier case.

c          12. The aforesaid authorities make it eminently clear
      that once an employee is an "insured person" under
      Section 2(14) of the 1948 Act, neither he nor his
      dependents would be entitled to get any compensation or
      damages from the employer under the 1923 Act. We are
D     obliged to hold so as the plain language used in the Act
      clearly conveys so. Therefore, we do not find any flaw in
      the view expressed by the High Court. At this juncture,
      we may state that while this Court granted leave on 22"d
      February, 2014, had direc~ed the respondent to deposit
E     Rs.4 lacs in the Registry of this court within four weeks
      and permitted the appellants to withdraw the said sum on
      furnishing a personal bond. We have been apprised that
      the amount has been deposited by the employer and also
      has been withdrawn by the legal heirs of the deceased
F     employee. Though the respondent is getting the benefits
      under the 1948 Act, yet we do not intend that the amount
      that has already been withdrawn by the legal heirs of the
      deceased-employee, should be recovered by the employer
G     by way of deducting the periodical sum that is paid to the
      family members of the deceased employee. We have
      passed this order as we are compelled to feel that the
      cause of justice should be best sub-served as the

H     6 (2009J 13 sec 361
    DHROPADABAI AND OTHERS v. TECHNOCRAFT                        929
           TOOLINGS [DIPAK MISRA, J.]

appellants have been fighting the litigation since a decade.      A

    13. Consequently, the appeal, being devoid of merit,
stands dismissed. However, there shall be no order as to
costs.
                                                                  B
Nidhi Jain                                   Appeal dismissed.