Judgment : This civil miscellaneous appeal has been filed under Section 82 of ESI Act, 1948 to set aside the decree and judgment of the Employees State Insurance Court, Coimbatore (Labour Court, Coimbatore) passed in E.S.I.O.P.No.111/2001 dated 06.08.2001. In the petition filed under section 75 of the Employees State Insurance Act, the following are alleged: The petitioner (first respondent) was working in Carding Department under the second respondent herein and his Ticket number is 1098. The E.S.I. Insurance number is 083938. On 07.01.1995, when he was working in the Carding department, he met with an accident in which his right hand was crushed and the entire finger was cut off. He was admitted to E.S.I. Hospital and was discharged on 06.07.1995. During the said period he was receiving the sickness benefits from the Corporation. At the time of accident, the petitioners salary was exceeding Rs.3,000/- and it exceeded only in October 1994. He was within the corresponding benefit period, so that only the other benefits are paid to him. After the discharge from the hospital, the petitioner approached the E.S.I. authorities to pay the disablement benefit, but, they refused by stating that he is not the worker as per E.S.I. Act. During the benefit period alone the accident took place hence the second respondent is liable to pay compensation. .2. In the counter filed by the first respondent, it is alleged that the petitioner was employed in the first respondent mill but he ceased to be an employee since he became ineligible to get any benefits after he reached salary limit of Rs.3,000/- per month. This respondent is liable to pay disablement benefit to an employee if he receives salary less than Rs.3,000/- per month. From 010. 1994 onwards, the petitioner was drawing a salary of Rs.3,000/- per month. The accident took place on 07.01.1995. Hence he cannot be termed to be an employee under the Act. By virtue of contribution paid by him from 01.04.1994 to 30.09.1994 he was eligible for sickness benefit and not to claim disablement benefit. Hence the petition has to be dismissed. .3. In the counter filed by the second respondent, it is stated as follows: .The petitioner was drawing more than Rs.1,600/- per month on the date of accident and hence he is not competent to claim the disablement benefit. The petition is not maintainable and hence it has to be dismissed. 4. Hence the petition has to be dismissed. .3. In the counter filed by the second respondent, it is stated as follows: .The petitioner was drawing more than Rs.1,600/- per month on the date of accident and hence he is not competent to claim the disablement benefit. The petition is not maintainable and hence it has to be dismissed. 4. The Presiding Officer of the Labour Court, Coimbatore allowed the application, directing the second respondent (appellant corporation) to ascertain the quantum of disablement benefit available to the first respondent and to pay. Aggrieved against the said order the appellant is before this court. 5. Concededly, the first respondent was an employee under the second respondent during relevant period. Admittedly, the contribution period was 01.04.1994 to 30.09.1994, while benefit period was 010. 1994 to 31.03.1995. The accident occurred on 07.01.1995 which resulted in loss of his finger. 6. Earlier, the first respondent had filed claim petition under Workmens Compensation Act, in which an order was passed directing him to invoke remedy under the E.S.I Act. 7. It is not denied that with effect from 010. 1994 the first respondent was drawing more than Rs.3,000/- per month. Afterwards, on 07.01.1995 the accident took place and the said date falls during the benefit period. These factors are not debatable. If the salary of the employee exceeds the statutory ceiling of salary, he is not eligible to get disablement benefit and he ceased to be an employee for the purposes of E.S.I Act. However, he is entitled for other benefits which have been enumerated under Section 28 of the E.S.I Act, such as, medical benefit, travelling and compensatory allowances, etc as follows:. Section 2(9) of the E.S.I Act defines employee as follows: “2. However, he is entitled for other benefits which have been enumerated under Section 28 of the E.S.I Act, such as, medical benefit, travelling and compensatory allowances, etc as follows:. Section 2(9) of the E.S.I Act defines employee as follows: “2. (9) ‘employee’ means any person employed for wages in or in connection with the work of a factory or establishment to which this Act applies and— .(i) who is directly employed by the principal employer on any work of, or incidental or preliminary to or connected with the work of, the factory or establishment, whether such work is done by the employee in the factory or establishment or elsewhere; or .(ii) who is employed by or through an immediate employer on the premises of the factory or establishment or under the supervision of the principal employer or his agent on work which is ordinarily part of the work of the factory or establishment or which is preliminary to the work carried on in or incidental to the purpose of the factory or establishment; or (iii) whose services are temporarily lent or let on hire to the principal employer by the person with whom the person whose services are so lent or let on hire has entered into a contract of service; and includes any person employed for wages on any work connected with the administration of the factory or establishment or any part, department or branch thereof or with the purchase of raw materials for, or the distribution or sale of the products of, the factory or establishment, or any person engaged as an apprentice, not being an apprentice engaged under the Apprentices Act, 1961 (52 of 1961), or under the standing orders of the establishment; but does not include— .(a) any member of [the Indian] naval, military or air forces; or .(b) any person so employed whose wages (excluding remuneration for overtime work) exceed [such wages as may be prescribed by the Central Government a month] Provided that an employee whose wages (excluding remuneration for overtime work) exceed [such wages as may be prescribed by the Central Government] a month at any time after (and not before)the beginning of the contribution period, shall continue to be an employee until the end of that period;] 8. The labour court, in its order has placed reliance upon certain judgments of this court and reached a conclusion that even though the salary limit of the petitioner exceeds the statutory limit, still he is eligible to get the disablement benefit. In 1988 (1) LLN 688 – Tirupur Textiles (P) Ltd, Ammapalaym, Tirupur vs. E.S.I. Corporation (By the Regional Director, Madras) and Others, it is stated that due to increase in dearness allowance, if the salary of the employee exceeded Rs.1,000/- and if he was covered by corresponding benefit period, he is entitled to permanent disablement benefit from the E.S.I Corporation. Another decision has been relied upon by the court below which opined that even though the employee had crossed the stage of his salary exceeding Rs.1,000/- per month even in the month of January 1998, the contribution was paid till March 1998 and hence he has to be held entitled for the benefit. 9. The learned counsel for the appellant Mr.K.C.Ramalingam would garner support from the decision of a Division Bench of this court reported in 2003-II-LLJ 895 – Employees State Insurance Corporation (rep. by Regl. Director), Chennai and M.Ganesan, wherein it has been categorically held that if the employee ceases to be an "employee" for the purpose of the Act, when his salary exceeded the limit during the contribution period, which had ended under the currency of succeeding benefit period, he is disabled from claiming disablement benefit. The operative portion of the judgment runs as follows:- "10. For claiming the disability benefit, it is a pre-condition that the employment injury should have been sustained at a time when the person was an employee. The fact that suc an employee had made contribution during the preceding contribution period and would be entitled to the sickness, maternity and other benefits provided under the other sub-clause of Section 46(1) would not on that score enable that employee to claim the disability benefit as well for an employment injury sustained during the benefit period. To hold otherwise would do violence to the clear language employed in Section 46(1) (c). A person who crosses the prescribed wage limit after the commencement of a contribution period is deemed to be an employee till the end of that contribution period and not beyond. To hold otherwise would do violence to the clear language employed in Section 46(1) (c). A person who crosses the prescribed wage limit after the commencement of a contribution period is deemed to be an employee till the end of that contribution period and not beyond. Though he is allowed to enjoy certain benefits during the corresponding benefit period he does so not as an employee, but as a person who was an employee during the relevant contribution period. An employment injury sustained during such benefit period, when he had ceased to be an employee on account of crossing the prescribed wage limit and the contribution period during which he crossed the wage limit also having ended, will not be an injury sustained by him as an employee. Disability benefit would not become payable to such a person. 10. Following the principles laid down in the Division Bench of this court, it is held that since the wage had crossed the limit much earlier to the date of the accident, the first respondent is held to be not eligible to get the disablement benefit. In such view of this matter, the order passed by the labour court, Coimbatore is liable to be set aside and it is accordingly set aside. The appeal deserves to be allowed. 11. In the result, appeal is allowed. No cost. Connected miscellaneous petition is also closed.