Regional Director ESI v. Francis De Costa

(1997) 6 Supreme Court Cases 263Supreme Court of India1997Labour Law II

Rule established

Section 53 bar is absolute. ESI-covered workers cannot claim under the Employees' Compensation Act even if ESI benefits are lower.

Facts

Worker covered under the ESI Act suffered an employment injury
ESI benefits were perceived as lower than what would be payable under the Employees' Compensation Act
Worker filed claim under the Compensation Act seeking higher compensation
Regional Director (ESI) objected: Section 53 bars dual claims

Issue

Whether an insured person under the ESI Act can claim compensation under the Employees' Compensation Act when ESI benefits are lower.

Held

Section 53 bar is absolute
Once a worker is covered under the ESI Act, the ESI scheme is the exclusive remedy for employment injury
Worker cannot claim under the Employees' Compensation Act regardless of benefit quantum
No exception for adequacy of benefits
The bar admits no discretion

Ratio Decidendi

Section 53 of the ESI Act creates an absolute bar against Compensation Act claims for ESI-covered workers. The ESI scheme is the exclusive remedy for employment injuries of insured persons, regardless of whether ESI benefits are lower.

How to use it in an exam

Authority for the Section 53 bar (ESI as exclusive remedy)
Use in questions asking "Can an ESI-covered worker also claim under the Compensation Act?"
Answer is always: No. Section 53 bar is absolute.
Key line: "In Regional Director ESI v. Francis De Costa (1997), the Supreme Court held that Section 53 is an absolute bar and ESI-covered workers cannot claim under the Compensation Act even if ESI benefits are lower."

Source

Source: (1997) 6 SCC 263; verified from chapter content

This is an educational summary, not the judgment itself. Cite the reported version in professional or academic work.