Madras High Court
The Regional Director vs Murugan on 4 March, 2021
C.M.A.No.1049 of 2019
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED : 04.03.2021
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE S.M.SUBRAMANIAM
C.M.A.No.1049 of 2019
The Regional Director,
Employees State Insurance Corporation,
Puducherry. ..Appellant
Vs.
1.Murugan
2.The Managing Director,
Mahabir Packaging,
Puducherry. ..Respondents
Prayer : Civil Miscellaneous Appeal filed under Section 82(2) of the
ESI Act, against the order of the Employees State Insurance
Court(Industrial Tribunal cum Labour Court), Puducherry dated
14.09.2017 made in E.S.I.O.P.No.1/2014 to set aside the same.
For Appellant : Mr.G.Bharadwaj
For Respondents : R1 – Mr.N.Narayana swamy
R2 – Mr.M.Aravind Subramaniam
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
1/8
C.M.A.No.1049 of 2019
JUDGMENT
The order dated 14.09.2017 passed in E.S.I.O.P.No.1/2014 is
under challenge in the present Civil Miscellaneous Appeal.
2. The Substantial question of law raised in the appeal reads as
under:
“(a) Whether the order of ESI Court is correct in
directing the appellant to pay Permanent Disablement
Benefit to the first respondent from 09.03.2011 when the
sickness benefit had been paid to him for 520 days from
the said date?
(b) Whether the ESI Court is correct in directing
the appellant to pay the sum of Rs.48,850/- being the
extended sickness benefit for 210 days when the first
respondent had failed to attend the dispensary during
the said period?
(c) Whether the ESI Court is correct in passing an
order for monitory compensation of Rs.2 lakhs when
there is no provision under the Act?
(d) Whether the ESI Court is correct in directing
the appellant to refund the amount which was realized
through recovery proceedings under Section 45-G of the
Act?”
3. The ESI Corporation is the appellant and the learned counsel
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
C.M.A.No.1049 of 2019
appearing on behalf of the appellant mainly contended that the award of
monitory compensation of Rupees Two Lakhs is not contemplated under
the provisions of the ESI Act. Thus, the ESI Court exceeded its
jurisdiction by granting compensation. This apart, for temporary
disablement benefits, the appellant/ESI Corporation has already settled
the amount as per the eligibility. In respect of the period, in which, the
workman has not taken treatment, no payment was made. However, the
ESI Court granted such payment, which is in violation of Section 64 of
the ESI Act.
4. The first respondent/workman, who is employed by the 2nd
respondent, met with an accident. There was an ESI Coverage
admittedly and accordingly, he was permitted to take treatment in the
ESI Hospital. He took treatment in the ESI Hospital and the temporary
disablement benefits were also sanctioned and disbursed to the workman
as per the eligibility and he received the said benefits. However, the
workman approached the Industrial Tribunal under Section 75 of the
ESI Act, to direct the 1st respondent for referring the petitioner to the
Jipmer Hospital Medical Board and to determine the disability in respect
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
C.M.A.No.1049 of 2019
of grievous injuries and further, he sought for permanent disablement
benefit and also to pay extended sickness benefits.
5. The factum regarding the accident was not disputed between
the parties. The workman took treatment and the benefits as applicable
were granted to the workman by the appellant / ESI Corporation. Not
satisfied with the quantum of amount received, the 1st respondent
workman filed an appeal. The ESI Court adjudicated the issues and
granted compensation of Rs.2,00,000/- and also the extended sickness
benefit of Rs.48,825/-.
6. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant
mainly contended that in the absence of no such provision to grant lump
sum compensation, the ESI Court has committed an error and such a
compensation cannot be granted. As far as the extended sickness
benefits are concerned, all benefit as applicable were settled in favour of
the 1st respondent workman and in respect of the date from 17.08.2012
to 09.04.2013, the 1st respondent workman had not attended the ESI
Hospital for taking treatment and therefore, he has not eligible for
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
C.M.A.No.1049 of 2019
temporary disablement benefits. With reference to the other treatments,
the benefits were settled. Thus, the order is liable to be set aside.
7. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the 1st respondent
workman disputed the said contention by stating that the nature of the
injuries sustained by the workman were grievous in nature and he took
treatment both in ESI Hospital and outside. Therefore, the Industrial
Tribunal considered the overall facts and circumstances and awarded
compensation.
8. This Court is of the considered opinion that the benefits, which
all are not contemplated under the provisions of the Act or the rules
cannot be granted by the Courts. Courts are bound to grant the benefits
within the scope of the statute. When there is no provision for grant of
compensation in lump sum unlike the Motor Vehicles Act or Workmens'
Compensation Act, the Appellate Court cannot grant compensation in
the absence of any provision to that effect.
9. In the present case, admittedly, there is no provision under the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
C.M.A.No.1049 of 2019
ESI Act to grant such lump sum of Rs.2,00,000/- and therefore, the ESI
Court has committed an error, which is in violation of the Statute. As far
as the extended sickness benefits are concerned, it is contended that the
disablement benefits were granted to this workman periodically,
considering the treatment undertook and the workman did not take any
treatment for the period from 17.08.2012 to 09.04.2013 and for that
period alone, the said benefit was not granted. Thus, the grant of
Rs.48,825/- is directly in violation of Section 64 of the Act.
10. This Court is of the considered opinion that the compensation
or disablement benefits to the workman are to be granted in accordance
with the provisions of the Act. Undoubtedly, the power of discretion of
the Court cannot be extended beyond the scope of the Statute and it
must be within the ambit of the provisions of the Act and in the present
case, there is no provision to grant lump sum compensation under the
Act. Thus, the very award of compensation by the Industrial Tribunal is
perverse and in violation of the Act itself. As far as the temporary
disablement benefits are concerned, the said benefits were already
settled in favour of the workman and it was not settled only for the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
C.M.A.No.1049 of 2019
period, in which, he did not took treatment. Thus, the workman is not
entitled for the temporary disablement benefit for the period from
17.08.2012 to 09.04.2013.
11. This being the factum established, this Court is of the
considered opinion that the judgment of the Industrial Tribunal in
ESIOP.No.1 of 2014 is perverse and accordingly, the said order dated
14.09.2017 passed in E.S.I.O.P.No.1/2014 stands set aside and the Civil
Miscellaneous Appeal in C.M.A.No.1049 of 2019 is allowed. No costs.
04.03.2021
kak
Index: Yes/No
Internet:Yes/No
Speaking order/Non-Speaking Order
To
The Employees State Insurance Court,
(Industrial Tribunal cum Labour Court), Puducherry.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
C.M.A.No.1049 of 2019
S.M.SUBRAMANIAM, J.
kak
C.M.A.No.1049 of 2019
04.03.2021
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
