Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH
Nawal Kishore Agarwal, J.
The Regional Director, Employees' State Insurance Corpn. – Appellant
Versus
Derhin Bai and another – Respondents
M.A. No. 282 of 1997
Decided On : 12-03-2012
Employees' State Insurance Act - Appeal u/s 82 - 1948 - Section 2(8)
Fact of the Case:
The case involved a claim for accidental benefits under the Employees' State Insurance Act, 1948, due to the death of an employee during an illegal strike at the workplace. The appellant contested that the death did not arise out of employment injury.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the death of the employee amounted to employment injury within the meaning of Section 2(8) of the Act, entitling the claimant to death benefits. The court relied on the interpretation of 'employment injury' and the circumstances of the incident to support its decision.
Issues: The main issue was whether the death of the employee constituted an employment injury under Section 2(8) of the Act, entitling the claimant to benefits.
Ratio Decidendi: The court interpreted the definition of 'employment injury' under Section 2(8) and emphasized the causal relationship between the accident and the employment. It also considered the circumstances of the incident and the employee's obligation to join duty as key factors in determining the employment injury.
Final Decision: The appeal was dismissed, and the court upheld the order granting death benefits to the claimant under the Act.
N.K. Agarwal, J.
This is non-applicant's appeal filed u/s 82 of the Employees' State Insurance Act, 1948 (for brevity 'the Act of 1948') against the order dated 17.1.1997 passed by the Court of Employees State Insurance, Labour Court. Rajnandgaon (for short 'the ESI Court') in case No. 1/92 ESI Act (Civil). Brief facts of the case are as under:
(i) Respondent No. 1 filed an application u/s 75 of the Act of 1948 before the ESI Court, Rajnandgaon for grant of accidental benefits against respondent No. 2 and appellant due to death of her husband Ramruj on 13.6.1986. According to respondent No. 1, her husband Ramruj was working in the Department of Engine Mechanic with respondent No. 2 in the second shift as Fireman. The B.N.C. Mill was registered under the E.S.I. Scheme. On 13.6.1986, there was illegal strike in the factory and in spite of that, her husband went on duty, when he reached at the gate of factory, agitated employees murdered him.
(ii) As per the appellant, Ramruj did not die of the accident, which arose out of and in the course of his employment and respondent No. 1 is not entitled to any benefit.
(iii) The ESI Court, on appreciation of the evidence led, decided the claim of respondent No. 1 in her favour by passing the order impugned directing the appellant to make payment within a period of one month. Hence, this appeal.
2. Shri S.P. Kale, learned counsel appearing for the appellant, would submit: the duty shift of late Ramruj was to commence at 9.30 p.m. whereas incident took place outside the Mill at 8.30 p.m., the time when he was not on duty and the ESI Court has legally erred in holding, deceased Ramruj sustained employment injury "within the meaning of section 2(8) of the Act of 1948 entitling respondent No. 1 to claim death benefit". Reliance has been placed on the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Regional Director, E.S.I. Corporation and another Vs. Francis De Costa and another, (supra).
3. Per contra, Shri Vivek Verma, learned counsel appearing for respondent 1 and Shri N.K. Vyas, learned counsel appearing for respondent No. 2, supported the order impugned and submitted : the ESI Court, on proper appreciation of the evidence, has held, Ramruj died of employment injury. u/s 82(2) of the Act of 1948, an appeal can' only be filed u/s 82 of the Act of 1948, if it involves a substantial question of law. In the instant case, no substantial question of law arises for determination of this Court and appeal is devoid of merit. It was further contended, when Ramruj reached to factory gate at 8.30 p.m. to join his shift duty, agitated employees murdered him, and therefore, by no stretch of imagination, it can be said, he did not die of employment injury.
4. I have heard the counsel appearing for the parties and perused the order impugned including record of the Court below.
5. The substantial question of law that involved in this case is "whether death of Ramruj amounted to employment injury within the meaning of section 2(8) of the Act of 1948 entitling respondent No. 1 to claim death benefit".
6. Section 2(8) of the Act of 1948 defines employment injury, which would mean to say, 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 occupation disease is contracted within or outside the territorial limits of India.
7. It is not in dispute, the B.N.C. Mill was registered under the E.S.I. Scheme and deceased Ramruj was at the gate of the factory premises at 8.30 a.m. to join his duty scheduled to commence at 9.30 p.m. when he was murdered by agitating employees.
8. The definition given to "employment injury" in sub-section (8) of Section 2 of the Act of 1948 envisages, a personal injury to an employee caused' by accident or an occupational disease "arising out of and in the course of his employment", therefore, respondent No. 1, in order to succeed in her case, will
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
