Regional Director Esic vs Husband Of Decd. Ratanben ...

      C/FA/589/2004                             JUDGMENT DATED: 14/02/2023




             IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD

                      R/FIRST APPEAL NO. 589 of 2004

FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE:

HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A.Y. KOGJE
===============================================================
1     Whether Reporters of Local Papers may be allowed                No
      to see the judgment ?

2     To be referred to the Reporter or not ?                         No

3     Whether their Lordships wish to see the fair copy               No
      of the judgment ?

4     Whether this case involves a substantial question               No
      of law as to the interpretation of the Constitution
      of India or any order made thereunder ?

================================================================
                     REGIONAL DIRECTOR ESIC
                              Versus
          HUSBAND OF DECD. RATANBEN DAHYABHAI & 2 other(s)
================================================================
Appearance:
MR SHASHIKANT S GADE(1706) for the Appellant(s) No. 1
HCLS COMMITTEE(4998) for the Defendant(s) No. 1.1
MR TEJAS D SHUKLA(5312) for the Defendant(s) No. 1.1
RULE SERVED for the Defendant(s) No. 1.2,2,3
UNSERVED EXPIRED (N) for the Defendant(s) No. 1
===============================================================
    CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A.Y. KOGJE

                            Date : 14/02/2023
                            ORAL JUDGMENT

[1] This First Appeal is preferred against the order of the ESI Court dated 28.08.2003, wherein the application filed by the dependent of deceased Ratnaben Dahyabhai came to be allowed to the extent of grant of dependency benefits as provided under the Employees' State Insurance Act, 1948 (for short "the Act").

       C/FA/589/2004                                          JUDGMENT DATED: 14/02/2023




[2]     The     matter      came   to     be     admitted      by     an     order      dated

21.06.2005 on the substantial question of law to the extent whether the ESI Court has erred in coming to the conclusion that appellant- husband of the deceased Ratnaben was dependent under the Act.

[3] When the matter is taken up for hearing, learned advocate for the appellant-corporation is absent. However, considering the pendency of the matter since 2004, the matter is taken up with the assistance of learned advocate appearing for the respondent No.1.1.

[4] From the case papers, it appears that the employee of respondent No.2 through respondent No.3 who was serving on the premises of the respondent No.2 met with an accident on 09.04.1999. On account of this incident, the respondent No.1-the husband and two children filed their claim before the ESI Court. It appears from the record that the claim was divided in two parts, first the claim was made to the extent of Rs.1,14,400/- and other part being the benefit of dependency under Section 52 of the Act. The ESI Court has proceeded to partly allow the claim only to the extent of dependency benefit under Section 52 of the Act while rejecting the claim for an amount of Rs.1,14,400/-.

[5] The issue before the Court is that the claim of dependency benefit qua the husband could not have been entertained by the ESI Court, as the husband/widower is not covered in the definition of 'dependent' under Section 2(6)(A) of the Act. The submission is made on behalf of the respondent that the word "spouse' is used in the definition clause being 2(11) of the Act, which is covering the definition of 'family' and Section 11(i) of the Act provides for a 'spouse' of an insured person. It is submitted that therefore, the widower will also be entitled to the benefit of dependency.

       C/FA/589/2004                                 JUDGMENT DATED: 14/02/2023




[6]     The Court has taken into consideration the definition of

'dependent' in Section 6(A) of the Act vis.a.vis. Section 46 which is the provision for the entitlement of benefits under the Act. The Court finds that Section 46 of the Act clearly provides for the dependents of the insured persons who can be held entitled to the benefits as mentioned therein. Section 52 of the Act also provides for dependent's benefits also mentions dependent as a person who is entitled to receive the benefits as a dependent. The Court finds that in none of the provisions which provides for the benefit in favour of the dependent would mention 'spouse' or 'family' who is said to be entitled to such benefit. Nonetheless at this stage, it is reported that respondent No.1-Mohanbhai Shivabhai Chauhan is also expired on 13.10.2014 and therefore, leaving behind only the surviving dependents who would now be entitled to receive the benefit under the Act.

[7] In that view of the matter, the Court does not find any reason to interfere with the decision of the ESI Court. The appeal stands hereby dismissed. Amount if any, lying as deposit with the authority or any bank under the order of ESI Court be permitted to disburse upon due verification in favour of the surviving dependents.

(A.Y. KOGJE, J) SIDDHARTH Page 3 of 3 Downloaded on : Thu Feb 16 21:21:41 IST 2023