IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD WRIT PETITION NO.2542/1994 Dharamsi & Sharamsi Oil Industries Private Limited, through its Manager, having its factory located at D/64, M.I.D.C. area, Jalgaon Taluka and District Jalgaon. ... PETITIONER [ORIGINAL OPPONENT] VERSUS Suresh S/o Namdeorao Wagh age 21 years, Occ-Nil residing at Tambapura, Mehroon, Jalgaon, Taluka and District Jalgaon. .. RESPONDENT [ORIGINAL CLAIMANT] Smt.Sangit, Adv.holding for Shri V.J.Dixit, Senior Advocate for petitioner. Respondent-Sole served. ... CORAM : R.K.DESHPANDE,J. DATE : 8/7/2010. ORAL JUDGMENT : 1] This Writ Petition challenges the order dated 30/10/1993 passed by the Commissioner for Workmen's Compensation and the Labour Court, Jalgaon in Application [WCA] No.87/1992. The Commissioner for Workmen's Compensation framed following 2 issues : “1] Does the opponent prove that the application is not tenable due to non-joinder of necessary parties ? 2] Does the opponent prove that the application is barred by Sec. 53 of the E.S.I. Act ?” The aforesaid issues are answered in the negative. It has been held that the petitioner who was respondent in the application has failed to prove that the application is not tenable due to non-joinder of necessary parties. It has further been held that the petitioner has also failed to prove that the application is barred by Section 53 of the Employees State Insurance Act,1948 (the said Act for short). 2] Smt.Sangit, the learned counsel for the petitioner has urged that in view of bar created under Section 53 of the said Act, the instant proceedings before the Commissioner for Workmen's Compensation under the Workmen's Compensation Act 1948, were not maintainable. At any rate, according to her, the insurer-Corporation was a necessary party to the proceedings. She relies upon the provisions of Section 53 of the said Act, which is reproduced below : “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 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 employee under this Act.” 3] Bare perusal of the aforesaid provision makes it clear that it is attracted only in the case of an insured person or his dependent. The learned Commissioner has recorded a finding in the order impugned in this Petition that except pleadings, nothing has been brought on record either in the form of documentary evidence or in the form of oral evidence to support the contention that the amount has been paid by the opponent/petitioner herein to the workmen. Except the pleading in the reply to the application that the matter is pending before the Medical Board, there is nothing pointed out by learned counsel for the petitioner to show that the employee was in fact insured or covered by the Provisions of the said Act. In view of this, no fault can be found with the findings recorded by the Lower Court. 4] In the result, there is no substance in the present Petition. The same is therefore, dismissed. Rule discharged. No order as to costs. (R.K.DESHPANDE) JUDGE umg/wp2542-94