Research › Search › Judgment

Kerala High Court · body

2024 DIGILAW 573 (KER)

Ajitha v. S. VS Deputy Director

2024-05-27

DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN

body2024
JUDGMENT : The petitioner says that she is working as an accountant in an institution by name “Sri. Sivaraja Pillai Memorial Private Industrial Training Center”, Kollam and that she has enrolled as a beneficiary under the Employees' State Insurance Act 1948 (“Act” for short). She asserts that, in her capacity as “Insured Person” under Section 2(14) of the Act, her daughter is entitled to obtain a 'Ward of Insured Person Certificate' for her higher education; but that this has been rejected by the first respondent -Deputy Director through her Ext.P4, solely citing the reason that the afore institution is owned by her husband. 2. The petitioner points out that, in Ext.P4, the Deputy Director accounts for her daughter as being the Ward of the employer, but without even peripherally considering the unequivocal fact that she is also her daughter and that she is an “Insured Person” under the Act. She, therefore, prayed that Ext.P4 be set aside and the competent Authority of the Employees' State Insurance Corporation (“ESIC”) be directed to issue her daughter an appropriate certificate as per law, without unavoidable delay. 3. Sri.M.P. Liju, learned counsel for the petitioner, argued that, going by the Statutory Scheme, the ward of an “Insured Person” is entitled to obtain a certificate to such effect and that this cannot be denied by the “ESIC” for the reason stated in Ext.P4. He contended that his client's daughter is, admittedly, the ward of an “Insured Person”; and therefore that the factum of the institution being owned by her husband would be of no consequence whatsoever. He thus reiteratingly the prayed that Ext.P4 be set aside and the “ESIC” be directed to issue the necessary certification in favour of her daughter, without any further delay. 4. Sri T.V Ajayakumar, learned standing counsel for the “ESIC”, however, in response, asserted that Ext.P4 is without error because the petitioner also admits that the institution in which she works is owned by her own husband. He argued that, therefore, the petitioner's daughter is the ward of the employer and hence, that the Deputy Director was without any mistake in having issued Ext.P4. He, however, conceded, to a pointed question from this Court, that the petitioner's mother is an “Insured Person” within the ambit of the Act; and that, but for the afore reason her daughter may have been entitled to the certificate and to benefits thereunder. He, however, conceded, to a pointed question from this Court, that the petitioner's mother is an “Insured Person” within the ambit of the Act; and that, but for the afore reason her daughter may have been entitled to the certificate and to benefits thereunder. He, nevertheless, argued that the factum of the petitioner's husband owning the institution being admitted, his daughter cannot be given a certificate as claimed. 5. Indisputably, this case presents a very unusual factual scenario. 6. It is admitted by both sides that the petitioner is an “Insured Person” under the ambit of the Act and that normally her ward would have been entitled to a certificate to such effect. However, there is a 'spin in the tale' -in a manner of speaking -because the petitioner's husband is the owner of the institution where she is working. 7. Therefore, the scenario presented is that the petitioner's daughter is the ward of both the “Insured Person” and the employer. The Deputy Director of the “ESIC” however, accounts her solely as the daughter of the employer, without in any manner recognizing her to be the daughter of the “Insured Person”; and this is where the petitioner calls into question the vires of Ext.P4 order. 8. Prima facie, there is some force in the submissions of the petitioner because, when the Statute provides for the issuance of a “Ward Certificate” in favour of the son/daughter of an “Insured Person”, it cannot be denied, except if that factum is found to be incorrect. 9. Of course, when I say this, I am also cognizant of the further submissions of T.V. Ajayakumar that the scheme is intended for the benefit of the wards of low paid employees and not to someone who is enjoying a higher financial strata in society. But this is a pure question of fact which has not been considered or evaluated in Ext.P4. 10. As I have already said above, as matters now stand, it is without contest that the petitioner's daughter is the ward of an “Insured Person”; while, at the same time, being the daughter of her employer also. This aspect has not been considered by the Deputy Director when Ext.P4 was issued, but he has proceeded in an automaton fashion, apparently under the impression that the petitioner's daughter can only be seen as the ward of the employer, recognizing her status through the paternal line. This aspect has not been considered by the Deputy Director when Ext.P4 was issued, but he has proceeded in an automaton fashion, apparently under the impression that the petitioner's daughter can only be seen as the ward of the employer, recognizing her status through the paternal line. 11. I am, therefore, of the firm view that the matter will require to be reconsider by the Deputy Director quickly, because the Statutory Scheme will have to be interpreted strictly, adverting to the purpose behind it and assessing the objective which is sought to be achieved. Unfortunately, Ext.P4 is a very cursory order, citing no reasons for the decision of the Deputy Director and I am, therefore, left without any other options, but to quash the same. Resultantly, I allow this Writ Petition and set aside Ext.P4; with a consequential direction to the Deputy Director of the “ESIC” to reconsider the petitioner's application, thus culminating in an appropriate order and necessary action thereon, adverting to all relevant and germane considerations and to my observations above. This shall be done as expeditiously as is possible, but not later than 31.05.2024, adverting to the factum of the last date fixed for such purpose being 01.06.2024.