JUDGMENT

K. RAMASWAMY

(1) THIS appeal, by special leave, arises against the judgment of the Kerala High court in A.S. No. 638 of 1974 dated 25/11/1977. The respondent was an employee in M/s J & P Coats (P) Ltd. at Koratty. He had to attend the duty in the second shift at 4.30 p.m. On 26/06/1971 while he was going on his bicycle to join duty, on the road leading to the factory at a distance of I kilometre the companys lorry hit him at 4.15 p.m. on left side of his body and knocked him down on the road. As a result his left collar bone and left shoulder were fractured and ultimately the Insurance Medical Officer certified that the respondent was totally and permanently incapacitated to work in the factory. He, therefore, laid the claim before the E.S.I. court under Section 75 of the Employees State Insurance Act, Act No. 34 of 1948 for short the Act which found that the respondent was going on the usual route along which he passes and repasses every day to and from the factory. The cycle was purchased by him from the advance given by the employer. He was not negligent in riding the cycle. The injuries were caused to him in an accident while in the course of his employment and that, therefore, he is entitled to the benefits under the Act. On appeal the High court confirmed these findings.

(2) SECTION 2(8 of the Act defines employment injury thus:

"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."

(3) A reading thereof would show that a personal injury caused to an employee by an accident or occupational disease arising out of and in the course of his insurable employment whether the accident occurred within or outside the territorial limits of India is an employment injury. The crucial but ticklish question of considerable importance is whether the injury caused by an accident on a public road, while on his way to join the duty just 15 minutes before reporting to duty at a distance of I Kilometre from the factory premises, arises out of and in the course of his employment?

(4) ACCIDENT has not been defined under the Act. The popular and ordinary sense of the word accident means the mishap or an untoward happening not expected and designed to have an occurrence is an accident. It must be regarded as an accident, from the point of view of the workman who suffers from it, that its occurrence is unexpected and without design on his part, although either intentionally caused by the author of the act or otherwise. It may also arise in diverse forms and not capable of precise definition. The common factor is somewhat concrete happening at a definite point of time and an injury or incapacity results from such happening.

(5) THE Act seeks to cover sickness, maternity, employment injury, occupational disease, etc. The Act is a social security legislation. It is settled law that to prevent injustice or to promote justice and to effectuate the object and purpose of the welfare legislation, broad interpretation should be given, even if it requires a departure from literal construction. The court must seek light from loadstar Articles 38 and 39 and the economic and social justice envisaged in the Preamble of the Constitution which would enliven meaningful right to life of the worker under Article 21. The State is enjoined under Article 39(c) to protect the health of the workers, under Article 41 to secure sickness and disablement benefits and Article 43 accords decent standard of life. Right to medical and disability benefits are fundamental human rights under Article 25(2 of Universal Declaration of Human Rights and Article 7(b) of International Convention on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights. Right to health, a fundamental human righ