The necessity of including all relevant parties in insurance benefit claims is critical for just adjudication.

JUDGMENT

ESI Corporation is challenging the judgment dated 12.06.2020 in I.C. No.41 of 2015, passed by the Employees’ Insurance Court, Alappuzha in this appeal. The Corporation has raised several questions of law in the memorandum of the appeal. I find that the following questions can be considered as substantial questions of law and shall address the same in this judgment:-

“(i) Whether the EI Court was correct in holding that the respondents herein are entitled to dependent’s benefits under ESI Act with respect to the purported deceased employee when the said person was not registered as an employee under the ESI scheme at the time of accident.

(ii) Whether the EI Court erred in not dismissing the above IC on the primary ground that the employer above stated, which is a necessary party, is not included in the party array in the above IC.”

2. The respondents approached the ESI Court for dependent’s benefits. They are the father and mother of an employee of ‘Malayil Builders’ who died on 22.09.2013, while working in a construction site. The deceased was seriously injured due to fall from height and was immediately taken to a hospital. However, unfortunately he succumbed to his injuries on 22.09.2013. The respondents contended that the employer duly submitted an accident report to the Corporation. According to the employer, the case was of an employment injury. However, the ESI Corporation rejected the said claim stating that the deceased was not a registered employee. The Insurance Court decided dispute in favour of the respondents. It was declared that the applicants are entitled for the dependent’s benefits and the injuries sustained by the deceased was an ‘employment injury’ as per Section 2 (8) of the ESI Act.

3. The learned Standing Counsel for ESI Corporation contended that the employer of the deceased made an attempt to include the deceased among the registered employees after the accident occurred. He also pointed out that subsequently the employer sent a letter to the ESI Corporation seeking refund of the amount remitted with respect to the deceased worker. The learned Standing Counsel contended that the Insurance Court failed to consider the relevant aspects. He also contended that in the nature of the dispute involved and contentions raised by the ESI Corporation, the employer was a necessary party to the proceedings. However, without the employer in the party array the Court proceeded assuming that the deceased was an employee covered under the scheme of the ESI Act.

4. It is also contended by the learned Counsel for the appellant that, since the deceased was not a registered employee until the occurrence of the accident, the Insurance Court ought not have granted the benefits to the respondents. In nutshell, the contention of the learned Standing Counsel for the ESI Corporation is that the employer fraudulently attempted to include the deceased among the registered employees in order to absolve his liability. The learned Counsel further submitted that fastening liability on the ESI Corporation in such a situation is highly unjust and the Insurance Court failed to approach the actual dispute involved in the case in a proper perspective.

5. The learned Counsel for the applicants before the Insurance Court supported the impugned judgment.

6. I find considerable merit in the contentions raised by the ESI Corporation in this appeal. I perused the impugned order. In the nature of the contentions raised by the ESI Corporation before the Insurance Court, I am of the considered view that the Insurance Court ought to have impleaded the employer as an additional respondent. The questions of law are answered in favour of the appellant. I find it appropriate to set aside the impugned order and remit the matter for fres