Judgment : 1. The learned counsel appearing for the appellant has submitted that the learned Commissioner for Workmen's Compensation erred in rejecting the letter dated 23.11.2002, in which the appellant had clearly stated that the deceased was an insured employee within the meaning of E.S.I. and his code number was also given. though these facts were handed over to the Commissioner, the same had been rejected in their order on the ground that E.S.I. identity card and subscription was not produced. In view of the code number having been given by the appellant, there could not be any dispute that the deceased was not an insured employee and hence the learned Commissioner erred in allowing the claim. 2. Further, the learned counsel has submitted that the learned Commissioner ought to have noted that E.S.I.Act is more beneficial than the Workmen's Compensation Act. By virtue of Section 53 of the E.S.I.Act, the third respondent was not entitled to claim any amount under the Workmen's Compensation Act, since the deceased was an insured employee within the meaning of E.S.I.Act. The learned counsel in support of his contention had cited a Supreme Court citation also. 3. The learned counsel appearing for the claimant has submitted that the claimant's husband was employed as a Mason under the second respondent/Contractor, who was engaged by the first respondent herein and that her husband had expired while doing his duty in the course of employment. On considering the employer-employee relationship, the Deputy Commissioner of Labour had granted compensation. Therefore, the Deputy Commissioner of Labour is the competent authority to decide the case. 4. The learned counsel for the E.S.I.Corporation has submitted that the Hon'ble Court had suo motu ordered the E.S.I.Corporation as the sixth respondent. Without giving an opportunity, before the Trial Court, the E.S.I.Corporation could not establish their case before this Court. The applicant had not approached the proper forum. Therefore, the Deputy Commissioner for Labour is not the authorised person to decide the case. 5. On considering the submissions made by the learned counsels and on perusing the impugned award of the Deputy Commissioner of Labour, this Court is of the view that the applicant is at liberty to approach the proper forum i.e., E.S.I.Court forthwith to get her remedy. 5. On considering the submissions made by the learned counsels and on perusing the impugned award of the Deputy Commissioner of Labour, this Court is of the view that the applicant is at liberty to approach the proper forum i.e., E.S.I.Court forthwith to get her remedy. After filing proper application before the E.S.I.Court, the E.S.I.Court has to take the case on file and dispose the same on merits within 30 days from the date of numbering the case. The respondents should extend their co-operation for a speedy disposal of the case. Considering the circumstances of the present case, the limitation period is waived. No order can be passed regarding the deposited amount by the appellant. 6. In the result, the above appeal is disposed of with the above direction. Consequently, the Order dated 30.12.2002, made in W.C.No.449 of 2001, on the file of the Commissioner for Workmen's Compensation (DCL), Salem, is kept in abeyance until such time the order of the E.S.I.Court is passed. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed. No costs.