JUDGMENT : S.C. Mohapatra, J. - This is an appeal u/s 30 of the Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923 (for short 'the Act') by the dependant of the deceased workman. 2. It is not in dispute that in an accident the employee, in course of his employment, sustained fatal injuries and the Appellant is his dependant. Refusal of the Commissioner under the Act to pay the compensation on account of the bar u/s 53 of the Employees' State Insurance Act, 1948 (for short the 'Insurance Act') is the only subject-matter to be considered in this appeal. 3. Section 53 of the Employees' State Insurance Act, 1948 reads as follows: 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. A plain reading of the section would show that an insured person or his dependants are not entitled to receive or recover from the employer any compensation under the Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923. 4. Mr. A.K. Rao, the learned Counsel for the Appellant, submitted that there is no acceptable material that the deceased workman was an insured person. 'Insured person' has been defined u/s 2(14) of the Insurance Act which reads as follows: Insured person' means a person who is or was an employee in respect of whom contributions are or were payable under this Act and who is, by reason thereof, entitled to any of the benefits provided by this Act. There is no dispute that the Respondent company owns a factory in which the deceased was employed as a workman. u/s 1, Sub-section (4) of the Insurance Act all factories are to be governed under the Insurance Act. u/s 38 thereof all the employees in factories are to be insured in the manner provided. OPW 1, the local Manager under the Insurance Act has categorically stated that the deceased employee was insured under the Act. u/s 1, Sub-section (4) of the Insurance Act all factories are to be governed under the Insurance Act. u/s 38 thereof all the employees in factories are to be insured in the manner provided. OPW 1, the local Manager under the Insurance Act has categorically stated that the deceased employee was insured under the Act. Once there is categorical statement by a competent witness that the employee is insured and Section 53 of the Insurance Act prohibits compensation under the Act, the Commissioner under the Act is justified in refusing to exercise his power under the Act in this case leaving the dependant to approach appropriate forum in the matter. 5. Mr. A.K. Rao submitted that the originals of the documents which are available not having been produced in this case to prove that the deceased workman had been insured, the secondary documentary evidence or oral evidence in that regard is not admissible. The technicalities of the Evidence Act are not attracted to an enquiry by the Commissioner under the Act who is a Tribunal. Once the Respondent under whom the deceased employee was working admits the same and the Manager employed under the Insurance Act has stated on oath before the Commissioner that the deceased employee had been insured under the Insurance Act as required u/s 38 thereof, the Commissioner was justified in finding that the deceased workman was an insured person. Denial of the dependant who has no personal knowledge has no value in this case. 6. In the circumstances, there is no merit in this appeal which is accordingly dismissed. No costs. Final Result : Dismissed