IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT: THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE T.R.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.P.JYOTHINDRANATH THURSDAY, THE 30TH DAY OF JULY 2015/8TH SRAVANA, 1937 Ins.APP.No. 49 of 2004 (A) --------------------------- AGAINST THE JUDGMENT IN IC 104/2002 of EMPLOYEES INSURANCE COURT, ALAPPUZHA DATED 31-05-2004 APPELLANT/APPLICANT:: ------------------------------------------------------------------ HASSAN KUNJU, S/O. ABDUL RAHMAN, THAIPARAMBU, VADAI, CANAL WARD ALAPPUZHA. BY ADVS.SRI.R.PARAMESWARAN NAIR SRI.C.UNNIKRISHNAN (KOLLAM) RESPONDENT/OPPOSITE PARTY:: ------------------------------------------------------------ THE REGIONAL DIRECTOR, ESI CORPORATION, TRICHUR-20. BY ADV. SRI.T.V.AJAYAKUMAR, SC, ESI CORPN. THIS INSURANCE APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 30-07-2015, ALONG WITH R.P.NO.828/2013, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: P.R. RAMAN & T.R. RAMACHANDRAN NAIR, JJ. = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = INSURANCE APPEAL NO. 49 OF 2004 = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = DATED THIS, THE 7TH DAY OF AUGUST, 2008. J U D G M E N T Raman, J. This is an appeal preferred by the applicant in I.C. 104/2002 before the Employees Insurance Court, Alappuzha, claiming disablement benefit for the injury sustained by him in an accident, while in service. The accident occurred on 18.4.2002. According to the applicant, he was a covered employee and he was working in the factory when he met with the accident. But the Corporation took the view that he ceased to be an employee with effect from 1.4.2002 since he exceeded the cut of wages of Rs. 6500/- as on the date of the accident. Hence he approached the Employees Insurance Court who took the view that since the contribution paid by the applicant was insufficient he could not have been treated as a covered employee even in the corresponding contribution period relating to the benefit period from 1.4.2001 to 30.9.2001. Aggrieved thereby, the applicant filed the present appeal. 2. When this matter came up for consideration, the learned Single Judge noticed that there is some difference of opinion on the issue raised. IN.AP. 49/2004 :2: Hence the matter was referred to the Division Bench. 3. It is not necessary now to consider the two decisions referred to in the reference order - one rendered by this Court and the other by the Madras High Court, since the issue is now set at rest by the decision of the apex court in Krishnankutty Nair v. E.S.I. Corporation (2008(2) KLT 639). That was an appeal arising out of the judgment of this Court and after referring to the provisions contained in Section 46(c) of the Employees State Insurance Act, it was held by the apex court that the said provision provides for two cumulative conditions namely, (i) the claimant must be an insured person and (ii) such an injury must be sustained when he was an employee. Therefore, as on the date of the accident, the injured person ceased to be an employee as defined under the Act, since he exceeded the wage limit prescribed and thus he will not be entitled to any benefit. The same view was taken by this Court in an unreported decision in E.S.I. Corporation v. K.K. Surendra Babu (M.F.A. 621/1986) and the apex court confirmed the view expressed in the said decision. In view of Section 46(c) of the Employees' State Insurance Act, the conditions to be satisfied for claiming the benefit are that (i) he must be an insured person (ii) that such an injury must be sustained when he was an employee. In this case, IN.AP. 49/2004 :3: admittedly, the appellant ceased to be an employee as on the date of the accident. He is not entitled for any benefit thereafter. The reference is answered accordingly. In the light of the above decision of the apex court, it has to be held that the applicant is not entitled for the benefit as sought for. Hence the appeal is dismissed. P.R. RAMAN, (JUDGE) T.R. RAMACHANDRAN NAIR, (JUDGE) knc/-