$~20 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI # CNR No. DLHC010268022019 + FAO 245/2019 & CM APPL. 28032/2019 M/S PRIDEL PVT LTD .....Appellant Through: Mr. Harvinder Singh, Advocate versus MINTU SINGH & ORS .....Respondents Through: Mr. Sumit Kumar and Ms. Samyukta Dorman, Advocates for R-1 Mr. Mahesh Srivastava and Mr. Vaibhav Manu Srivastava, Advocates for R-2 along with Mr. Sanjay Bala, SSO for ESIC CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANOJ KUMAR OHRI O R D E R % 10.09.2026 1. This present appeal has been filed on behalf of the appellant under Section 30(1)(A)(AA) of the Employee‟s Compensation Act, 1923 („EC Act‟), against the ex-parte order dated 16.08.2018 passed by the learned Commissioner, Employees Compensation in Case No. CEC/SD/I/02/2018. 2. The primary challenge raised on behalf of the appellant to the impugned order is that respondent no. 1 being already a beneficiary of the compensation under the Employees‟ State Insurance Act, 1948 (hereinafter referred to as “ESI Act”) could not have pursued a claim under the EC Act in view of bar of Section 53 of the ESI Act. 3. This Court, in light of above submission, on 21.01.2026, had directed the respondent no. 2 to file an affidavit. In compliance, an affidavit has been This is a digitally signed order. The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 16/09/2026 at 12:06:06 placed on record, as per which, respondent no. 1 is being paid permanent disablement benefit of Rs.200.29/-per day. Along with an affidavit, a copy of the ledger has also been enclosed, which shows regular payments made since the year 2012 that were revised from time to time. 4. Learned counsel for respondent no. 1, though acknowledges that respondent no. 1 is receiving payments under the ESI Act, however, disputes the period. 5. At this stage, learned counsel for respondent no. 2 further clarifies that though the accident occurred in the year 2012, respondent no. 1 had approached the ESIC in the year 2019, where his claim was admitted, and even arrears from 2012 onwards were paid. 6. Keeping in view the admitted factum that respondent no. 1 has received compensation, and the same being also stated by respondent no. 2, the claim proceedings are initiated under the EC Act are clearly hit by Section 53 of the ESI Act, accordingly, the ex-parte impugned order is hereby set aside. 7. The award amount deposited before the learned Commissioner by the appellant be refunded to it along with interest accrued thereon. Needless to state that in case respondent no. 1 is aggrieved by the act of respondent no. 2 on the arrears of the quantum of compensation, he shall be at liberty to seek remedy in accordance with law. 8. The appeal, along with the pending application, stands disposed of in the above terms. MANOJ KUMAR OHRI, J SEPTEMBER 10, 2026/RW This is a digitally signed order. The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 16/09/2026 at 12:06:06