The main legal point established in the judgment is the legal effect of revocation of the marriage agreement on the entitlement to dependants' benefits, the application of limitation as a bar against the claims, and the need for further details and adjudication on the solemnization of remarriage.

Ramachandran, J.

Order passed by the Employees Insurance court, Kollam dated 28-9-2004 in Insurance Case No.32 of 2002 is under challenge. Sri.T.V. George appeared for the appellant and Sri.Sandeep Raja represented the respondents. We note that the application had not received as much attention as it required, and the issue involved has to be subjected to a fresh consideration on all aspects. A remand of the matter therefore becomes essential. We may briefly note the facts of the case, as guidelines require to be issued for a proper adjudication of the disputed question.

2. Sri. Maria Das, husband of Smt. Mary the appellant was an employee covered by the Employees Insurance Scheme. The couple had four children, all of them girls. Sri Maria Das had met with an accident on 3-1-1984 which had led to his premature death on the date following. Although a road accident, the E.S.I. Corporation had recognized it as an employment injury and had sanctioned dependants’ benefits to the widow and her four children by order dated 6-8-1984. Later, when information had reached the E.S.I. Corporation, that there was a remarriage of the appellant on 8-6-1987, the dependants’ benefits to her had been discontinued. Nevertheless, as provided by the Act, benefits continued to be extended to the daughters till they attained the age of 18, the last of whom reached the said age on 26-10-2001.

3. The Insurance Case No.32 of 2002 however came to be filed at the instance of Smt.Mary, wherein she had urged a contention that the stoppage of dependants’ benefits to her was on a mistaken notion, since at no time there was a remarriage which could have interfered with her rights to continue to get dependants’ benefits. According to her, a formal application had been made to the Corporation on 3-2-1999 requiring them to review the decision, but since no response was forthcoming, the application under Section 75 of the Employees’ State Insurance Act (hereinafter referred to as E.S.I.Act’) had been filed. She submits that consequent to the death of her husband, she had preferred a claim for compensation before the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, and there was likelihood of a sizeable compensation being received. The details of such proceedings are not divulged here. She averred that her in-laws had schemed so as to get a portion of such compensation. With this view, she had been cajoled to enter into a property settlement, and the agreement as above had been registered on 8-6-1987. However, later she noticed that this was not a property settlement, but an agreement for marriage with the brother of late Sri. Maria Das, Sri. Yesudas. They had never lived together as husband and wife and she was never dependant of Sri. Yesudas. Coming to know of the fraud played, she had executed another document on 13-10-1987 cancelling the earlier agreement. Reference is also made to still another document dated 27-2-1990 which was a registered agreement between herself and Sri. Yesudas canceling the marriage agreement of 8-6-1987. She had been misled by the relatives of her deceased husband and as a consequence, she stood to lose a life long benefit which otherwise might have been admissible as dependants’ benefits. It was a case where Corporation was obliged to review their order and re-start payment of dependants’ benefits from the date on which it was discontinued. Relief in the said lines had been prayed for.

4. In the counter statement filed, the respondent had contended that coming to know of the marriage, due enquiries had been made with the Office of the Registrar and the relevant documents had been taken into possession. On the authority of Section 55-A of the E.S.I.Act, as it was a case where because of her remarriage, she was to forfeit the benefits which were sanctioned to her, there was nothing irregular about it. It is pointed out that there was no cancellation agreement, and even if that be the case, it had no legal effect. As per the rules, dependants’ be