Introduction:

In a recent case before the Kerala High Court, an “unusual” scenario unfolded where the daughter of an employee insured under the Employee State Insurance Act was denied a “Ward of Insured Person Certificate” due to her father’s ownership of the institution where her mother worked. The court grappled with the question of whether the daughter, despite her father’s position, was entitled to the benefits under the ESI scheme intended for low-paid employees.

Arguments:

Advocate Liju M. P., representing the petitioner, argued that the denial of the certificate to the petitioner’s daughter was unjustified, emphasizing her eligibility as a beneficiary under the ESI Act. On the other hand, Advocate T. V. Ajayakumar, representing the respondents, contended that the scheme was not intended for individuals enjoying a higher financial status, suggesting that the daughter’s familial circumstances should disqualify her from the benefit.

Court’s Judgment:

The Kerala High Court, in its ruling, criticized the Deputy Director of ESIC for a cursory and unreasoned decision, highlighting the absence of consideration for the daughter’s financial status. Emphasizing the need for a strict interpretation of statutory schemes in alignment with their intended objectives, the court quashed the Deputy Director’s order and directed a reconsideration, urging a thorough assessment of all relevant factors and observations made by the court.