DHROPADABAI AND OTHERS versus M/S. TECHNOCRAFT TOOLINGS
[2015] 3 S.C.R. 921, Supreme Court of India, 2015
Outcome: Dismissed (Dismissed)
Segment: Ratio
[2015] 3 S.C.R. 921 
DHROPADABAI AND OTHERS 
v. 
M/S. TECHNOCRAFT TOOLINGS 
(Civil Appeal No.8155 of 2014) 
MARCH 19, 2015 
A 
B 
[DIPAK MISRA AND PRAFULLA C. PANT, JJ.] 
Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923 - Compensation C 
under - Entitlement to - Employee dying in the course of 
employment- Said employee insured under the 1948 Act 
- Claim of compensation by his legal heirs - Held: Once 
an employee is an insured person under section 2(14) of 0 
the 1948 Act, neither he nor his dependents entitled to get 
· any compensation or damages from the employer under the 
1923 Act- Employees' State Insurance Act, 1948- s. 2(14). 
Dismissing the appeal, the Court 
E 
HELD: 1.1 Once an employee is an "insured 
person" under Section 2(14) of the Employees' State 
Insurance Act, 1948, neither he nor his dependents 
would be entitled to get any compensation or damages 
from the employer under the Workmen's Compensation F 
Act, 1923, as the plain language used in the Act clearly 
conveys so. Therefore, there is no flaw in the view 
expressed by the High Court that the legal heirs would 
not be entitled to get compensation under the 1923 Act 
as he was an insured person. [Para 12] [928-C-D, F-G] G 
1.2 While granting leave, this Court directed the 
respondent to deposit Rs.4 lacs in the Registry of this 
921 
H
922 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2015] 3 S.C.R. 
A Court within four weeks and permitted the appellants 
to withdraw the said sum on furnishing a personal 
bond. The amount has been deposited by the employer 
and also has been withdrawn by the legal heirs of the 
deceased employee. Though the respondent is getting 
B the benefits under the 1948 Act, yet it is not intended 
that the amount that has already been withdrawn by the 
legal heirs of the deceased-employee, should be 
recovered by the employer by way of deducting the 
periodical sum that is paid to the family members of the 
C deceased employee. [Para 12] [928-E-G] 
Jyothi Ademma vs. Plant Engineer, Ne/lore & Another 
2006 (3) Suppl. SCR 400: (2006) 5 SCC 513; A. Trehan 
vs. Associated Electrical Agencies and Another 1996 (2) 
D Suppl. SCR 728 : (1996) 4 SCC 255; Regional Director, 
ES/ Corporation vs. Francis De Costa 1992 (3) SCR 23: 
(1993) Supp. 4 SCC 100; P. Asokan vs. Western Indian 
Plywoods Ltd., Cannanore AIR 1987 Kerala 103; Bharagath 
Engineering vs. R. Ranganayaki and Another 2002 (5) 
E Suppl. SCR 642: (2003) 2 SCC 138; National Insurance 
Company Ltd. vs. Hamida Khatoon and Others 2009 (8) 
SCR 248:(2009) 13 SCC 361 - referred to. 
Case Law Reference 
F 
2006 (3) Suppl. SCR 400 Referred to. 
Para 4 
1996 (2) Suppl. SCR 728 Referred to. 
Para 5 
1992 (3) SCR 23 
Referred to. 
Para 9 
G 
AIR 1987 Kerala 103 
Referred to. 
Para 9 
2002 (5) Suppl. SCR 642 Referred to. 
Paras 10, 11 
2009 (8) SCR 248 
Referred
to. 
Para 11 
H
DHROPADABAI AND OTHERS v. TECHNOCRAFT 
923 
TOOLINGS 
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. A 
8155 of 2014. 
From the Judgment and Order dated 16.07.2012 of the 
High Court of Bombay Bench at Aurangabad in FA No. 462 
of 2011. 
B 
Sandeep Singh Tiwari, Yogendra Kumar Dubey and 
Shiv Sagar Tiwar, for the Appellants. 
Shashibhushan P. Adgaonkar, Rana Sandip B. (for S-
iegal Association) for the Respondent. 
C 
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by 
DIPAK MISRA, J. 1. The present appeal, by special 
leave, is directed against the judgment and order dated 16th D 
July, 2012, passed by the High Court of Bombay Bench at 
Aurangabad in First Appeal No.462 of 2011, whereby the 
High Court has allowed the appeal and set aside the award 
passed by the Commissioner under the Workmen's 
. Compensation Act, 1923, (for short, 'the 1923 Act'). 
E 
2. The facts which are requisite to be stated are that 
the appellants, the legal heirs of Ambadas Lahane, filed an 
application for grant of compensation under the 1923 Act 
before the labour Court, Maharashtra at Aurangabad, 
F 
forming the subject matter of Application No.51 of 2006. It 
was asserted in the application that the appellant No.1, 
Dhropadabai, is the wife and the other respondents were 
minor children of the deceased-employee, who had suffered 
a chest pain at the work place about 8.30 a.m. on 2nd April, G 
2005. He was immediately taken to the Medical College 
Hospital, Ghati, Aurangabad, where he was declared
dead. 
After the death took place, the appellant No. 1 approached 
the authorities of the respondent-employer for grant of 
compensation. As the same was not granted, she along with H
. 924 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2015] 3 S.C.R. 
A her children, was compelled to move the labour Court. · 
3. Before the labour Court, the employer, the 
respondent herein, took two fold stand, namely, (i) that the 
legal heirs of the deceased-employee were not entitled to 
B get any compensation under the 1923 Act as the deceased-
employee was an insured person under the Employees' 
State Insurance Act, 1948 (for short, 'the 1948 Act'), and 
(ii) the accident did not occur during course. of his 
employment as the death took place due to coronary 
C disorder, which has nothing to do with the work place. The 
labour Court framed two principal issues, namely, whether 
the accident had occurred during course of employment of 
the deceased-employee, and whether the legal heirs were 
entitled for grant of compensation amounting to Rs.3 lacs 
D along with 50% penalty and interest at the rate of 18% per 
annum on the total amount of compensation from the date 
of accident till realization of compensation amount as per 
law. 
E 
4. The labour Court considering the material brought 
on record and the decision of this Court in Jvothi Ademma 
vs. Plant Engineer. Ne/lore & Anothert, came to hold that 
the deceased-employee had died in course of employment 
while remaining on duty with the respondent-employer. 
F Thereafter, it referred to the applicability of the 1923 Act in 
the backdrop of Section 53 of the 1948 Act and came to 
hold that there was no justification to deny the
compensation under the 1923 Act solely because the 
G employee was an insured person under the 1948 Act. Being 
of this view, the labour Court directed that a sum of 
Rs.4,07,700/- shall be awarded towards the payment of 
compensation on the death of deceased Ambadas Lahane 
H 1 (2006J 5 sec 513
DHROPADABAI AND OTHERS v. TECHNOCRAFT 
925 
TOOLINGS [DIPAK MISRA, J.] 
to his legal heirs. It also stipulated that if the employer failed A 
to pay such compensation within a stipulated period, that 
is, one month, it will be open to the legal heirs of the 
deceased-employee to file an application under Section 4(a) 
of the 1923 Act. 
5. Being grieved by the aforesaid award, the employer 
moved the High Court and reiterated both the contentions. 
The High Court analyzing the evidence on record and the 
stand put forth by the employer affirmed the view expressed 
B 
by the labour Court that the deceased was an employee C 
under the respondent-firm and he has breathed his last 
during the course of employment. As far as the applicability 
of the 1923 Act is concerned, the learned Single Judge 
opined on the basis of the decision rendered by this Court 
in A. Trehan vs. Associated Electrical Agencies and D 
Another- that the legal heirs would not be entitled to get 
compensation under the 1923 Act as he was an insured 
person. 
6. We have heard Mr. Sandeep Singh Tiwari, learned E 
counsel for the appellants and Mr. Shashibhushan P. 
Adgaonkar, learned counsel for the respondent. 
7. The status of the employee and the factum of his 
breathing last during the course of employment, cannot be F 
called in question as it hinges on the facts and we find that 
the approach of the labour Court, as well as of the High 
Court on this score is absolutely infallible. Therefore, the 
only
question that remains for consideration is whether the 
High Court is justified in denying the benefit under the 1923 G 
Act. In this context, we may refer to Section 53 of the 1948 
Act, which reads as under: 
2 (1996) 4 sec 255 
H
926 
A 
B 
c 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
(2015] 3 S.C.R. 
"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 
employment injury sustained by the insured person as 
an employee under this Act." 
8. The aforesaid provision came to be interpreted by 
a two-Judge Bench in A. Trehan's case, wherein the Court 
after reproducing the said provision and taking note of the 
D definition of workman as provided under Section 2(1)(n) 
E 
F 
G 
H 
of the 1923 Act, came to hold as follows: 
"A comparison of the relevant provisions of the two 
Acts makes it clear that both the Acts provide for 
compensation to a workman/employee for personal 
injury caused to him by accident arising out of and in 
the course of his employment. The ESI is a later Act 
and has a wider coverage. It is more comprehensive. 
It also provides for more compensation than what a 
workman would get under the Workmen's 
Compensation Act. The benefits which an employee 
can get under the ESI Act are more substantial than 
the benefits which he can get under the Workmen's 
Compensation Act. The only disadvantage, if
at all it 
can be called a disadvantage, is that he will get 
compensation under the ESI Act by way of periodical 
payments and not in a lump sum as under the 
Workmen's Compensation Act. If the Legislature in its 
wisdom thought it better to provide for periodical
DHROPADABAI AND OTHERS v. TECHNOCRAFT 
927 
TOOLINGS [DIPAK MISRA, J.] 
payments rather than lump sum compensation its A 
wisdom cannot be doubted. Even if it is assured that 
the workmen had a better right under the Workman's 
Compensation Act in this behalf it was open to the 
Legislature to take away or modify that right. While 
enacting the ESI Act the intention of the Legislature B 
could not have been to create another remedy and a 
forum for claiming compensation for an injury received 
by the employee by accident arising out of and in the 
course of his employment." 
9. Be it noted, the Court distinguished the decision 
rendered in Regional Director, ES/ Corporation vs. 
Francis De Costa1, and overruled the Full Bench decision 
of the High Court of Kerala in P. Asokan vs. Western 
c 
Indian Plywoods Ltd., Cannanore!. 
D 
10. In Bharagath Engineering vs. R. Ranqanayaki 
pnd Another-, a two-J:.idge Bench has ruled thus: 
"The deceased employee was clearly an 'insured E 
person', as defined in the Act. As the deceased 
employee has suffered an employment injury as 
defined under Section 2(8) of the Act and there is no 
dispute that he was in employment of the employer, 
by operation of Section 53 of the Act, proceedings F 
under the Compensation Act were excluded statutorily. 
The High Court was not justified in holding otherwise. 
We find that the Corporation has filed an affidavit 
indicating that the benefits under the Act shall be 
3 (1993) Supp. 4 sec 100 
4 AIR
1987 Kera la 103 
5 (2003) 2 sec 138 
G 
H
928 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2015] 3 S.C.R. 
A 
extended to the persons entitled under the Act. The 
benefits shall be worked out by the Corporation and 
shall be extended to the eligible persons." 
11. In National Insurance Company Ltd. vs. Hamida 
B Khatoon and Others•, reference has been made to A. 
Trehan's case, as well as Bharagath Engineering's (supra) 
and as it appears to us, the later Bench has concurred 
with the view expressed in the earlier case. 
c 
12. The aforesaid authorities make it eminently clear 
that once an employee is an "insured person" under 
Section 2(14) of the 1948 Act, neither he nor his 
dependents would be entitled to get any compensation or 
damages from the employer under the 1923 Act. We are 
D obliged to hold so as the plain language used in the Act 
clearly conveys so. Therefore, we do not find any flaw in 
the view expressed by the High Court. At this juncture, 
we may state that while this Court granted leave on 22"d 
February, 2014, had direc~ed the respondent to deposit 
E Rs.4 lacs in the Registry of this court within four weeks 
and permitted the appellants to withdraw the said sum on 
furnishing a personal bond. We have been apprised that 
the amount has been deposited by the employer and also 
has been withdrawn by the legal heirs of the deceased 
F employee. Though the respondent is getting the benefits 
under the 1948 Act, yet we do not intend that the amount 
that has already been withdrawn by the legal heirs of the
deceased-employee, should be recovered by the employer 
G by way of deducting the periodical sum that is paid to the 
family members of the deceased employee. We have 
passed this order as we are compelled to feel that the 
cause of justice should be best sub-served as the 
H 6 (2009J 13 sec 361

DHROPADABAI AND OTHERS v. TECHNOCRAFT 
929 
TOOLINGS [DIPAK MISRA, J.] 
appellants have been fighting the litigation since a decade. A 
13. Consequently, the appeal, being devoid of merit, 
stands dismissed. However, there shall be no order as to 
costs. 
B 
Nidhi Jain 
Appeal dismissed.