ESI coverage survives lack of registration before death, and Workmen's Compensation proceedings are barred under Section 53.

Coverage under the Employees' State Insurance Act, 1948 turns on whether contributions are payable under the statutory scheme, not on actual registration or prior payment before an accident. The text explains that the obligation to contribute arises when the Act applies to the establishment, and the Rules and Regulations, including the provisions dealing with accidents before the first benefit period, preserve insurance cover despite absence of registration at the time of death. On that basis, an employee who suffered an employment injury and died before registration was treated as an insured person, and Section 53 excluded proceedings under the Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923.

---

---

Issues: Whether an employee who suffered an employment injury and died before registration with the Employees' State Insurance Corporation could still be treated as an insured person under the Employees' State Insurance Act, 1948, and whether Section 53 barred proceedings under the Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923.

Analysis: The expression "are or were payable" in Section 2(14) of the Employees' State Insurance Act, 1948 was held to be decisive. The statutory obligation to pay contribution arises from the date the Act applies to the factory or establishment, and the scheme of the Act, the Rules and the Regulations shows that insurance under the Act is not dependent on actual registration or on prior payment before the accident. Rule 58(2)(b) and the connected Regulations make specific provision for accidents occurring before the first benefit period, showing that non-payment of contribution or absence of registration at the time of death does not defeat coverage. Since the deceased was in employment and had suffered an employment injury, he fell within the statutory definition of an insured person. In that situation, Section 53 operated to exclude proceedings under the Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923.

Conclusion: The deceased employee was an insured person under the Act, and the claim under the Workmen's Compensation Act was statutorily barred.

---