Back
Andhra Pradesh High Court
Judges : GHULAM MOHAMMED
Mummidipalli Syamaladevi - Appellant
Versus
Regional Director, ESI Corporation, Hyderabad and others - Respondent
Decided On : 10-23-02
Civil Matter - Civil Law - Employees State Inuurance,1948 - Section 75 (c) and (g), Section 52, Section 2 (g) - Mother of deceased- moved Employees insurance Court under Section 75 (c) and (g) Act, 1948 - Inter alia, stating that her son was working as machine Operator in factory of 3rd respondent since August, 1989, he was residing in quarter provided by 3rd respondent in factory premises, and died due to electric shock in early hours - Since accident occurred in premises of 3rd respondent- Employer i. e. , within factory premises, this accident is deemed to have been arising out of and during course of employment - Though petitioner was paid ex grata by 3rd respondent-company, but no compensation was granted under provisions of workmen s Compensation Act, as deceased was covered under provisions of ESI Act - Therefore, mother of deceased laid above application claiming benefits admissible under Section 52 of ESI Act - Respondents 1 and 2 filed a written statement stating that Scheme of enactment, on a close analysis, takes care of only such liabilities, as are defined under Section 2 (g) of ESI Act and that petitioner s son had not even commenced work entrusted to him on day of alleged accident - Petitioner s son occupied premises available with 3rd respondent on his own accord and residing therein as there was no other convenient place available to him - His shift hours commences by 7 a. m. , and taking bath and attending to his nature calls will not amount to and connected to trade or business of 3rd respondent-Company and therefore accident did not arise during course and out of employment and hence claim of petitioner is not proper - It is further stated that first Information Report did not reveal any suspicious circumstances leading to death of petitioners son - Action taken by respondent-Corporation rejecting case for payment of dependents benefits is within provisions of Act and petitioner is not entitled to any of relief as prayed for in this petition - Contention of learned counsel for appellant is that deceased was provided with a quarter by management of 3rd respondent and he was residing in said quarter and while preparing to attend to office, he had gone for taking bath near the bore-well and on account of it he was electrocuted, and died, therefore, his death should be deemed to be occurred during and in course of employment – Held, Court It is now well-settled, however, that this is subject to theory of notional extension of employer s premises so as to include an area which workman passes and re- passes in going to and in leaving actual place of work - May be reasonable extension in both time and place and a workman may be regarded as in course of his employment even though he had not reached or had left his employer s premises - Facts and circumstances of each case will have to be examined very carefully in order to determine whether accident arose out of and in course of employment of a workman, keeping in view at all times this theory of notional extension - Workman employed in a Salt Works while returning home after finishing his work had to go by a public path, then through a stand area in open public and finally across a creek through a ferry boat - Workman while crossing creek in a public ferry boat which capsized due to bad wheather was drowned - On a claim for compensation held that on facts of case accident could not be said to have arisen out of and in course of employment while crossing creek inasmuch as theory of notional extension could not extend to point where boat capsized - Court that when a driver when going home from bus depot or coming to depot uses bus, any accident that happens to him is an accident in course of his employment - Court see no substantial question of law that arises for consideration in this appeal - I therefore, see no merits in this appeal and same is dismissed.
( 1 ) THIS Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is directed against an order dated 16-2-1996 passed in EIC No. 4/1995 on the file of the Court of the Employees Insurance court and Chairman, Industrial Tribunal-I, hyderabad.
( 2 ) THE mother of the deceased-M durga Prasad moved the Employees insurance Court under Section 75 (c) and (g) of the Employees State Insurance Act, 1948. (for short "esi Act"), inter alia, stating that her son M. Durga Prasad was working as machine Operator in the factory of the 3rd respondent since August, 1989, he was residing in the quarter provided by the 3rd respondent in the factory premises, and died due to electric shock in the early hours of 22-4-1991. Since the accident occurred in the premises of the 3rd respondent- employer i. e. , within the factory premises, this accident is deemed to have been arising out of and during the course of the employment. Though the petitioner was paid ex gratia of Rs. 30,000/- by the 3rd respondent-company, but no compensation was granted under the provisions of the workmen s Compensation Act, as the deceased was covered under the provisions of the ESI Act. Therefore, the mother of the deceased laid the above application claiming the benefits admissible under Section 52 of the ESI Act.
( 3 ) THE respondents 1 and 2 filed a written statement stating that the Scheme of the enactment, on a close analysis, takes care of only such liabilities, as are defined under Section 2 (g) of the ESI Act and that the petitioner s son had not even commenced the work entrusted to him on the day of the alleged accident. The petitioner s son occupied the premises available with the 3rd respondent on his own accord and residing therein as there was no other convenient place available to him. His shift hours commences by 7 a. m. , and taking bath and attending to his nature calls will not amount to and connected to the trade or business of the 3rd respondent-Company and therefore the accident did not arise during the course and out of employment and hence the claim of the petitioner is not proper. It is further stated that the first Information Report did not reveal any suspicious circumstances leading to the death of the petitioner s son. The action taken by the respondent-Corporation rejecting the case for payment of the dependent s benefits is within the provisions of the Act and the petitioner is not entitled to any of the relief as prayed for in this petition.
( 4 ) THE 3rd respondent-Company has also filed a written statement stating that the deceased was covered under the provisions of the ESI Act and the management duly remitted all the contributions along with the Employer s share to the ESI Corporation. If the dependants of the deceased have any claim they can claim only against the ESI Corporation and not from the respondent No. 3. It is further stated that there was no direct water supply to the bathrooms and hence the employees had to come to the water tank and carry water to the bathrooms every day. Sometimes, the employees residing in the factory premises will go to the water tank situated within the factory premises and take bath there itself for which the management had not objected and this was the practice adopted by the employees living in the quarters provided by the management. Therefore, there was no obligation on the part of the employees to stay compulsorily in the quarters provided by the management. On 22-4-1991 at 7. 05 a. m. , Mr. Durga Prasad was found on the ground near bore-well electrical switchboard and when one of the Supervisors came to the first shift and he was immediately rushed to the ESI Hospital at Erragadda where the Doctors declared him as dead. The said fact was immediately informed to the Employees State Insurance Corporation by accident report on 22-4-1991 itself. The accident notice was also served on the inspector of Factories informing the accident. It is further stated by the 3rd respondent that the deceased Durga Prasad was
SupremeToday
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
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
