ESI Act | Mother Employed But Father Owns Institution; Is Daughter Entitled To 'Ward Of Insured Certificate'? What Kerala High Court Held

The Kerala High Court recently came across an "unusual" scenario where the daughter of an employee, insured under the Employee State Insurance Act was denied the "Ward of Insured Person Certificate" since her father owned the institution where her mother is employed.The question before the Court was that since the ESI scheme is intended for the benefit of low paid employees, whether the daughter in this case will be entitled to such benefit when her father owns the institution.Court said whether the daughter enjoys a higher financial strata in the society is a "pure question of fact" which was not considered by the Deputy Director of ESIC. It thus directed the official to reconsider the matter."Unfortunately, Ext.P4 is a very cursory order, citing no reasons for the decision of the Deputy Director...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," Court noted.Petitioner is working as an accountant in an institution. She is a beneficiary under the Employee State Insurance Act. The petitioner claims that her daughter is eligible to get a 'Ward of insured Person Certificate' for her higher education. The certificate was rejected saying that the petitioner is the employee of her husband. Therefore, her daughter is the ward of the employer.The respondent had argued that the scheme is not intended for someone who is enjoying a higher financial strata in the society. Court however said that this is a question of fact which has not been considered or evaluated in the order rejecting petitioner's daughter's certificate.The Court observed that statutory scheme will have to be interpreted strictly keeping in mind its purpose and objective sought to be achieved.It thus quashed the order of the Deputy Director saying it was cursory and has not cited any reasons. The Court asked the Director to reconsider the application and make an order adverting to all the considerations and Court's observations.Counsel for Petitioner: Advocate Liju M. P.Counsel for Respondents: Advocate T. V. AjayakumarCitation: 2024 LiveLaw Ker 321Case Title: Ajitha V. S. v The Deputy DirectorCase No.: WP(C) 18641/2024" target="_blank"Click here to read/download Order

ESI Act | Mother Employed But Father Owns Institution; Is Daughter Entitled To 'Ward Of Insured Certificate'? What Kerala High Court Held

Manju Elsa Isac

Tags