JUDGMENT The appellant is hereby assailing correctness, propriety and legality of the order which has been passed by Employees State Insurance Court in Case No. 35/98. A petition was moved by one Siara W/o Siraj Mohd. r/o 130, Labour Colony, Mandsaur in the E.S.I. Court Mandsaur for getting benefit of extended sickness as she was working in Jyoti Slat Pen Works, Mandsaur as she was suffering from 'silicosis'. The record shows that said Siara was working in the said factory from 1980 to 2.7.92 and during that period she contacted 'silicosis'. The record further shows that she was registered at S.No. 10338150 with E.S.I. Corporation through Jyoti Slat Pen Works, Mandsaur vide Code No. 18-8401-42. On 30.5.93, respondent No. 1 Siara submitted an application vide form No. 16A and informed the authority about her contacting 'silicosis'. Said form and information was Forwarded by Jyoti Slat Pen Works to the concerned officials of E.C.I. Corporation on 25.5.93 vide B-L-1 (C). Necessary information was also supplied to E.S.I. Board. The present appellant, the Corporation had called Siara to its office at Mandsaur vide letter dt. 10.7.93. She was asked to come to the office on 23.8.93. On 21.12.92 a letter was issued in favour of said Siara permitting her to have leave for seven days commencing from 2.7.92 on account of she contacting 'silicosis'. However; she was not paid the benefit of such absence from the work on account of contacting 'silicosis'. Said Siam made an application to the Corporation, the present appellant by completing necessary formalities but inspite of that the appellant, as alleged by Siam, did not render her benefit of insurance for said period of seven days. That gave rise to the petition for compensation by Siara which was decided by ESI Court by its order on 13.3.96, which is the subject matter of challenge in this appeal. Shri Maltare, counsel appearing for the appellant ESI Corp. (hereinafter referred to as Corporation for convenience), submitted that in view of provisions of S. 52(a) of The Employees' State Insurance Act, 1948 (for short the Act), Siara, W/o Siraj Mohd. was not entitled to get said benefit as she has not worked for six months continuously prior to herself contacting 'silicosis'. M/s Kasrekar, counsel appearing for respondent submitted that the order passed by the ESI Court is correct and proper. S. 52A, Sub. was not entitled to get said benefit as she has not worked for six months continuously prior to herself contacting 'silicosis'. M/s Kasrekar, counsel appearing for respondent submitted that the order passed by the ESI Court is correct and proper. S. 52A, Sub. S. (1) starts with -- "if an employee employed in any employment specified in Part A of the Third Schedule contacts any disease specified therein as an occupational disease peculiar to that employment or if an employee employed in the employment specified in Part B of that Schedule for a continuous period of not less than six months contacts any disease specified therein as an occupational disease peculiar to that employment or if any employee employed in an employment specified in Part C of that Schedule for such continuous period as the Corporation may specify in respect of each such employment contacts any disease specified therein as an occupational disease peculiar to that employment the contacting of the disease shall, unless the contrary is proved, be deemed to be an 'employment injury' arising out of and in the course of employment. Schedule 3 : provided to the enactment points in Part A infectious and parasitic diseases cont-acted in an occupation where there is a particular risk of contamination. The said Schedule provides the description of the employment which has been indicated by (a) (b) (c) and (d). The employment description indicated by letter (d) are -- "Other work carrying a pm1icular risk of contamination. The said Schedule further gives the descriptions of various employment involved in said risk which has been covered by provisions of the Act. The Schedule Part C provides the employment connected with pneumoconiosis caused by sclerogenic mineral dust (silicosis, anthr cosilicosis asbestosis) and silico-tuberculosis provided that silicosis is an essential factor in causing the resultant incapacity or death." While reading provisions of S. 52A a distinction has to be understood between the first part of sub. S. 1 of S. 52A of the. Act which starts with these words ''if an employee employed in any employment specified in Part A of the Third Schedule contacts any disease specified therein as an occupational disease peculiar to that employment". This has been totally dissociated by word 'or'. S. 1 of S. 52A of the. Act which starts with these words ''if an employee employed in any employment specified in Part A of the Third Schedule contacts any disease specified therein as an occupational disease peculiar to that employment". This has been totally dissociated by word 'or'. By getting dissociated by the word 'or' the next sentence starts with these words "if an employee employed in the employment specified in Part B of that Schedule for a continuous period of not less than six months contacts any disease so specified therein as an occupational disease peculiar to that employment". This has also been described further by word 'or', the third part of Sub. S. (1) which starts with ''if an employee employed in any employment specified in Part C of that Schedule for such continuous period as the Corporation may specify in respect of each such employment contacts any disease specified therein as an occupational disease peculiar to that employment." Thereafter, Sub. S. (1) provides "that the contacting of the disease shall, unless the contrary is proved, be deemed to be an 'employment injury' arising out of and in the course of employment." Learned counsel for the appellant pointed his finger towards continuous employment in such industries for six months. It means indirectly that the appellant wants that Siara W/o Siraj Mohd. should have been in work continuously for six months for all the days before the date when she noticed that she had contacted silicosis. 'Silicosis is an effect which has been caused by silicons which is occupational hazard involved in the employment of a person in slate manufacturing industry. Needless to say, silicosis is a process which continuously grows in the body as if a hidden enemy is growing. It signifies its appearance when a person starts noticing its painful effects or resultant effects. Needless to say that there are number of disease which human being suffers which grow as if they are growing like an iceberg. It is a matter of experience that only 1/8th of the iceberg is invisible over the water. That is the same case with the diseases which are similar to silicosis. It is pertinent to note at this juncture that this silicosis grows into silico-tuberculosis. It is a matter of experience that only 1/8th of the iceberg is invisible over the water. That is the same case with the diseases which are similar to silicosis. It is pertinent to note at this juncture that this silicosis grows into silico-tuberculosis. By keeping in view the dangerous trend of growth of silicosis, the legislature was required to mention it in the form of silico-tuberculosis in Part C as pneumoconiosis caused by sclerogenic mineral dust (silicosis, anthracosilicosis absestosis). Many industries have brought number of diseases to the mankind in different forms. The mankind went forward to have more and more industries and this industry minded acquisiciousa society had landed in vicious circle of benefits and curses. The mankind, more particularly, the scientists are working hard to find out the escape gate off the strangle held of groups of such disease which have been thrown as curses of industrial, growth at the cost of environmental balance. Till that time victims are to suffer consequential pairs and agonies. In this background how it is to be accepted that an employee working in slate industry should prove that he was in continuous employment as such prior to the day when the notices that he had contacted silicosis. We are in the era of 'Welfare State'. Because of that, beneficial enactments like the Act has been brought forth by the welfare State by legislation. The benevolent spirit behind it cannot be permitted to be defeated by such technical objections. In fact, the corporation which has been created for the purpose of giving benefit to such hapless employees, should not come with such objections. The attitude expressed by a corporation while raising such objections stand depricated. By interpreting provisions of S. 52A of the Act 1 do not find that the intention behind enacting the Employees' State Insurance Act, 1948 is anything like that of the objections which have been raised by the appellant. It is pertinent to note at this juncture that a sentence has been used in S. 52A which needs to be specially marked "unless the contrary is proved, be deemed to an 'employment injury' arising out of an in the course of employment". What was the need of using this sentence in S. 52A if the intention was otherwise than which has been indicated by this judgment. What was the need of using this sentence in S. 52A if the intention was otherwise than which has been indicated by this judgment. In this era of benevolent enactments, and thinking of welfare State and an assurance of fundamental rights to citizens, all benevolent enactments have to be interpreted with a broader out look. If anything is to be interpreted, if anything need to be interpreted from the codified sections, the interpretation should be always in favour of beneficiaries for whom the enactments have been indicated. The indicator of the interpretation should be always pointing towards the hapless, weaker sections of the society who are thrown in hazardous occupation and calamities by their misfortunes, and on account of lack of facilities, the out come of ignorance, poverty and bad traditions of the days of past. Though the learned commissioner has not given the reason in detail justifying his order, I do not find that the order which has been passed by him in favour of Siara, wife of Siraj Mohd., the respondent happens to be any way incorrect, improper and illegal. Thus, the appeal stands dismissed with costs. Counsel fee Rs. 1,000/- (one thousand).