SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

1996 Supreme(SC) 1436

1996(6) Supreme 678
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
A.M. Ahmadi, C.J.I., Suhas C. Sen and Sujata V. Manohar, JJ.
The Regional Director, E.S.I. Corporation & Anr. -Appellants
versus
Francis De Costa & Anr. -Respondents
Civil Appeal No. 1174 of 1979
Decided on 11-9-1996
Counsel for the Parties :
For the Appellants : V.V. Vaze, Sr. Advocate, Ms. Suvira Lal, (Chava Badri Nath Babu) Advocate for C.V.S. Rao, advocates.
For the Respondents : Romy Chacko, and N. Sudhakaran, Advocates.

VERY IMPORTANT POINT
It cannot be said that the injury suffered by the workman one kilometer away from the factory while he was on his way to the factory was caused by an accident arising out of and in the course of his employment when employee was unable to prove that the accident had any causal connection with the work he was doing at the factory.

Headnote:Employees State Insurance Act, 1948-Section 2(8)-Employment injury-Words arising out of ..... his employment -Meaning-Injury sustained while employee was on his way to factory where he was employed-Accident took place one kilometer away from place of employment-Employee going on bicycle hit by a lorry-It cannot be said that injury suffered was caused by an accident arising out of and in course of his employment-Employee unable to prove that accident had any causal connection with work he was doing at factory.

       Held : Unless an employee can establish that the injury was caused or had its origin in the employment, he cannot succeed in a claim based on Section 2(8) of the Act. The words "accident ..... arising out of .... his employment" indicate that any accident which occurred while going to the place of employment or for the purpose of employment, cannot be said to have arisen out of his employment. There is no causal connection between the accident and the employment. (Para 7)

       Further held : In order to succeed, it has to be proved by the employee that (1) there was an accident, (2) the accident had a casual connection with the employment and (3) the accident must have been suffered in course of employment. In the facts of this case, we are of the view that the employee was unable to prove that the accident had any casual connection with the work he was doing at the factory and in any event, it was not suffered in the course of employment. (Para 20)

       

JUDGMENT

Sen, J.-Francis De Costa, the first respondent herein, met with an accident on June 26, 1971 while he was on his way to his place of employment, a factory at Koratty. The accident occurred at a place which was about one kilometer away to the north of the factory. The time of occurrence was 4.15 P.M. It has been stated that the duty-shift of the respondent would have commenced at 4.30. P.M. The respondent was going to his place of work on bicycle. He was hit by a lorry belonging to his employers, M/s. J and P Coats (P) Ltd.

2. The respondent s collar-bone was fractured as a result of the accident and he had to remain in disposal for 12 days. His claim for disablement benefit was allowed by the Employees State Insurance Court. The appeal filed against that order was dismissed by the Kerala High Court which also dismissed an application for a certificate of fitness to appeal on the Supreme Court. The petitioner filed an application for Special Leave to appeal to this Court on 16.4.1979. Special Leave was given by this Court, but the Employees State Insurance Corporation was directed to pay the first respondent the compensation due to him in terms of the order of the Employees State Insurance Court and also the costs of this appeal in any event. It has been stated that the compensation money has already been paid to the first respondent.

3. Since there was difference of opinion between the two Judges who heard the appeal, the matter was directed to be placed before a larger Bench for deciding the controversy.

4. In order to appreciate the scope of the controversy, it will be necessary to set out the relevant provisions of the Employees State Insurance Act, 1948 :-

"2(8). "employment injury" means a personal injury to an employee caused by accident or an occupational disease arising out of and in the course of his employment, being an insurable employment, whether the accident occurs or the occupational disease is contracted within or outside the territorial limits of India;

51. Disablement benefit.- Subject to the provisions of this Act -

(a) a person who sustains temporary disablement for not less than three days (excluding the day of accident), shall be entitled to periodical payment at such rates and for such period and subject to such conditions as may be prescribed by the Central Government;

(b) a person who sustains permanent disablement, whether total or partial, shall be entitled to periodical payment at such rates and for such period and subject to such conditions as may be prescribed by the Central Government.

51-C. Accidents happening while travelling in employer s transport.-(1) An accident happening while an insured person is, with the express or implied permission of his employer, travelling as a passenger by any vehicle to or from his place of work shall, notwithstanding that he is under no obligation to his employer to travel by that vehicle, be deemed to arise out of and in the course of his employment, if -

(a) the accident would have been deemed so to have arisen had he been under such obligation; and

(b) at the time of the accident, the vehicle-

(i) is being operated by or on behalf of his employer or some other person by whom it is provided in pursuance of arrangements made with his employer, and

(ii) is not being operated in the ordinary course of public transport service.

(2) In this section "vehicle" includes a vessel and an aircraft."

5. That the first respondent has suffered a personal injury is not in dispute. The only dispute is whether the injury will amount to "employment injury" within the meaning of Section 2(8), so as to enable the respondent to claim benefit under the Act. The definition given to "employment injury" in sub-section (8) of Section 2 envisages a personal injury to an employee caused by an accident or an occupational disease "arising out of and in the course of his employment". Therefore, t


































Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top