JUDGMENT

Pasayat, J.-Leave granted.

2. The challenge in this appeal is to a Division Bench judgment of the High Court at Madras. The point involved, though short, is interesting and relates to the question as to who can be treated as an insured person under Section 2(14) of the Employees State Insurance Act, 1948 [in short, `the Act ].

3. A brief reference to the factual position, which is almost undisputed, would suffice.

4. One Balakrishnan [hereinafter referred to as the deceased employee ] was employed by the appellant [hereinafter referred to as the employer ] on and from 20th May, 1987. He lost his life in an accident which was claimed to be arising out of and in the course of his employment with the employer. Respondent No. 1 [hereinafter referred to as the claimant ] filed an application for compensation before the Commissioner for Workmen s Compensation, Trichy, under Workmen s Compensation Act, 1923 [hereinafter referred to as the Compensation Act ]. The employer questioned the maintainability of the proceeding on the ground that Section 53 of the Act clearly barred entertainment of such an application. The stand was accepted by the Deputy Commissioner of Labour and th