IMPORTANT POINT
Person insured under the Employees' State Insurance Act, 1948 is not entitled to get any compensation from the employer under Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923.

JUDGMENT

Dipak Misra, J.

The present appeal, by special leave, is directed against the judgment and order dated 16th 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').

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, 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, 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 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 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 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 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.

4. The labour Court considering the material brought on record and the decision of this Court in Jyothi Ademma vs. Plant Engineer, Nellore & Another, (2006) 5 SCC 513 came to hold that the deceased-employee had died in course of employment while remaining on duty with the respondent-employer. 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 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 to his legal heirs. It also stipulated that if the employer failed 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 by the labour Court that the deceased was an employee 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 Another, (1996) 4 SCC 255 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 counsel for the appellants and Mr. Shashibhushan P. Adgaonkar, learned counsel for the respondent.

7. The status of the