IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JAIPUR BENCH, JAIPUR. O R D E R S.B. CIVIL WRIT PETITION No.5050/1995. : : Chanda Bai & Ors. Vs. Workman Compensation Commissioner & Ors. : : Date of Order 21.7.2009 HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE MOHAMMAD RAFIQ Mr. Tapasvi Vashistha for Mr. K. K. Sharma for the petitioner. Mr. Shailash Prakash with Mr. Vikash Kabra ] Mr. Rakesh Bhargava for the respondents.
Mr. S. D. Khaspuria, Addl.Govt.Counsel for the State.
This writ petition has been filed assailing the order dated 31.8.1994 passed by Workman Compensation Commissioner, Kota.
Petitioners were dependents of deceased Ramesh Chand, who was serving the respondents No.2 & 3 and have approached this Court aggrieved by rejection of their claim under the Workman Compensation Act.
Learned counsel for the petitioners argued that view taken by Workman Compensation Commissioner that since the deceased was covered under the Employees State Insurance Act, 1948, claim under Section 3 read with Section 4 of Workman Compensation Act, 1923 would be barred by virtue of Section 53 of the Act, was wholly misconceived. Learned counsel placed reliance on the judgment of Orissa High Court in Dhruba Charan Sahu Vs. General Manager, East Coast Breweries : 1988 ACJ, 246.
Learned counsel appearing for the respondents have produced for perusal of this Court judgment of Supreme Court in Bharagath Engineering Vs. R. Ranganayaki & Anr. : 2003 (2) SCC, 138 and argued that view taken by Workman Commissioner has now been reiterated by Supreme Court holding that if an employee was insured person as defined in Section 2 (8) of ESI Act and he was in the employment of employer, by operation of Section 53 the proceedings under the Compensation Act would stand excluded statutorily.
In view of authoritative pronouncement in Bharagath Engineering (supra), the claim of petitioner in my considered view, was rightly rejected by Workman Compensation Commissioner as being barred by Section 53 of ESI Act.
Dismissal of this writ petition however would not have any adverse effect on the right of petitioner to approach the competent authority under the Employees State Insurance Act, 1948 and/or any other law, where he shall be entitled to claim the benefit of Section 14 of Limitation Act.
This writ petition is dismissed on that analogy.
(MOHAMMAD RAFIQ)J.
A.Arora/-
Item No.H/12.