- (1.) This appeal arises out of the following facts.
(2.) The appellant who was a covered employee under the ESI scheme met with an accident in the course of his employment on 15th June 1990. An accident report was sent by the employer respondent No.2 in the present appeal to the respondent Corporation. The Corporation however refused to treat the injuries sustained, as injuries suffered during employment on the plea that on the date of the accident the employee was not covered under the ESI scheme. It was also communicated to the employee by a communication dated 4th December 1990 that he had ceased to be an employee with effect from 1st October 1989 and therefore he would not be entitled to any benefit for the disability but would be eligible for sickness benefits for the period 16th June 1990 to 30th June 1990. The employee thereupon filed an application before the Employees Insurance Court, Alappuzha claiming the benefit of disability on account of the injuries that he had suffered. In the counter statement filed by the Corporation, it was pointed out that the employee as an insured person had made contributions up to 30th September 1989 and that he ceased to be an employee with effect from 1st October 1989 as his salary had exceeded Rs.1600/- per month from 1st October 1989 and as such was not entitled to any benefit towards disability. The Employees Insurance Court in its order dated 14th November 1991 examined the various provisions of the Employees State Insurance Act 1948 (hereinafter called the "Act") and in particular the definition of 'employee' and 'insured person' under section 2(9) and 2(14) respectively as well as section 46 that dealt with 'benefits' and ultimately concluded that although the claimant ceased to be an employee with effect from 30th September 1989 he was nevertheless an "insured person" in terms of section 2(14) as he had paid contributions towards his insurance which would cover his case from 1st April 1989 to 30th September 1989 though he continued to be an insured person up to 30th June 1990 and as such his claim for the injury on 15th June was fully justified under the Act.
(3.) Aggrieved by the order of the Employees Insurance Court, the Corporation preferred an appeal before the High Court of Judicature at Kerala. The High Court in its judgment dated 28th February 2000 noted that the facts of the case were not disputed and relying on a decision of the Division Bench of that very court in MFA 621/1986 (Regional Director, ESI Corporation vs. K.K.Surendra Babu) observed that if a person was not an employee during a particular contribution period and an accident had taken place during such period, he would not be entitled to ESI benefits. Having held above, the court further concluded that as the accident in the present case had also occurred after the claimant had ceased to be an employee, though within the contribution period, he was not entitled to the benefit of the payment of insurance from the Corporation. The appeal was accordingly allowed and the order of the Employees Insurance Court dated 14th November 1991 was set aside. It is in this situation that the matter is before us in appeal at the instance of the employee.;