Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC-LKO:19025 Court No. - 6 Case :- WRIT - C No. - 3069 of 2025 Petitioner :- M/S Globatech Creation Pvt. Ltd. Thru. Auth. Signatory Mr. Durgesh Shahi Respondent :- Sri Rajaram Verma And 6 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Prashant Kumar,Sarvesh Kumar Tiwari,Shailaja Mishra Counsel for Respondent :- Amarjeet Singh Rakhra,Neerav Chitravanshi Hon'ble Pankaj Bhatia,J. 1. Supplementary affidavit filed today in Court is taken on record. 2. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner; Shri Piyush Kishore, learned counsel holding brief of Shri Neerav Chitravanshi, learned counsel for respondent no.2; Shri Bashisth Muni Mishra, learned counsel holding brief of Shri Amarjeet Singh Rakhra, learned counsel for respondent nos.3 to 6; and Shri Shishir Pradhan, learned counsel for respondent no.7. 3. Present petition has been filed challenging an award dated 28.12.2024 passed under the Employee's Compensation Act. The award was awarded on account of the death of the person who was entitled to the same in terms of the provisions contained under the Employee's Compensation Act (hereinafter referred to as 'the EC Act'). Although an appeal lies against the said award, the same has not been preferred by the petitioner and he has approached this Court directly. 4. To substantiate the said remedy taken by the petitioner, learned counsel for the petitioner argues that the Court which awarded the compensation under the EC Act did not have the jurisdiction, and the claim was maintainable only before the authorities contemplated under the Employees' State Insurance Act, 1948 (hereinafter referred to as 'the ESI Act'). 5. Reliance is placed upon Section 53 of the ESI Act to argue that an insured person or his dependents are barred from taking any compensation under the Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923 (now known as Employee's Compensation Act) and thus, the claim filed before the authority specified under the EC Act was barred and thus, the award is without jurisdiction. 6. For appreciating the arguments as raised by learned counsel for the petitioner, it is essential to notice the scheme of the ESI Act as well as the EC Act. Section 53 of the ESI Act is as under: "53. Bar against receiving or recovery of compensation or damages under any other law.— An insured person or his dependants shall not be entitled to receive or recover, whether from the employer of the insured person or from any other person, any compensation or damages under the Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923 (8 of 1923) or any other law for the time being in force or otherwise, in respect of an employment injury sustained by the insured person as an employee under this Act." 7. On a plain reading of the said scheme, it is clear that the compensation to which a person is entitled under the ESI Act will not be available under the Workmen's Compensation Act, however, it should be in respect of an employment injury sustained by the insured person as an employee under this Act. 8. Reliance is also placed on Section 61 of the ESI Act, which reads as under: "61. Bar of benefits under other enactments.—When a person is entitled to any of the benefits provided by this Act, he shall not be entitled to receive any similar benefit admissible under the provisions of any other enactment." 9. On a plain reading of the bar created by virtue of Section 53 and Section 61 of the ESI Act, it is clear that the person who is entitled to any of the benefits under the ESI Act cannot claim the said benefits under any other enactment. 10. It is essential to notice as to what are the benefits that flow under the ESI Act in favour of an employee. The benefits are covered under Chapter V of the ESI Act, which include the benefit as specified therein. The said Chapter V includes Section 52 which indicates that the dependents are entitled to the benefits which could have flown in favour of the employee under this Act. Thus, on a plain reading of Section 52 also, it is clear that the dependents are entitled to the benefits which could have flown in favour of the employee, if he has died on account of the employment injury sustained. The dependents as defined under Section 2(6-A) include the persons mentioned therein who should be dependent on the deceased. 11. In contradiction to the said Act, the EC Act prescribes for grant of compensation if a personal injury is caused to an employee by accident arising out of and in the course of his employment, which includes the benefit of death also as prescribed under Section 4 of the EC Act. 12. On a plain reading of the two Acts, what transpires is that the benefits as prescribed under the ESI Act are not the same as contained in EC Act. In either of the case, it is the remedy available to the employee under both the Acts which can be availed; both the Acts are socio-beneficial piece of legislation. The bar under Section 53 and Section 61 of the ESI Act, as argued by counsel for the petitioner, would not affect the dependents of an employee who has died on account of an accident in approaching the authorities under the EC Act, as was rightly done by them. 13. At this stage, learned counsel for the petitioner places reliance on a judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Bharagath Engineering v. R. Ranganayaki and Anr.; (2003) 2 SCC 138, particularly Para 12. In the said case the Supreme Court was confronted with the issue as to whether the employee would be entitled to the benefits even if the employee is not insured with the corporation, even if the contributions were not made by the employee and the employee is registered. The said judgment is of no avail to the petitioner. 14. For all the reasons recorded above, no good ground for entertaining the writ petition is made out. Present petition is accordingly dismissed. 15. The petitioner would be at liberty to prefer an appeal as prescribed under the EC Act, if so advised under law. Order Date :- 5.4.2025 nishant Digitally signed by :- NISHANT MOHAN High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench