Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
R.Sakthivel, J.
The Management Employees State Insurance Corporation Sub-Regional Office Rep. By its Deputy Director No.1897, Coimbatore - Appellant
Vs.
N.Aaran @ Aruchamy - Respondent
CMA NO.13 OF 2022 AND CMP NO.100 OF 2022
Decided On : 29-08-2024
Employment - Employees' State Insurance Act - Sections 2(8), 52 - The court interpreted the provisions of the E.S.I. Act, emphasizing the definition of employment injury and the circumstances under which benefits are applicable, ultimately affirming the entitlement of dependents to benefits due to the nature of the accident.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioners, parents of the deceased worker, claimed compensation after their son fell from the third floor of a factory where he was employed. The employer admitted the accident occurred during employment, but the E.S.I. Corporation denied liability, stating it was not an employment injury.
Finding of the Court:
The E.S.I. Court found that the accident occurred in the course of employment, as the deceased was accommodated on-site for the employer's benefit. The court ruled that the dependents were entitled to benefits under the E.S.I. Act.
Issues: Whether the accident was an employment injury and if the petitioners are entitled to dependents' benefits under the E.S.I. Act.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the accident occurred in the course of employment, establishing a causal link between the employment and the injury, thus entitling the dependents to benefits under the E.S.I. Act.
Result: The Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is dismissed, confirming the E.S.I. Court's order.
JUDGMENT :
PRAYER: Civil Miscellaneous Appeal filed under Section 82(2) of the Employees' State Insurance Act, 1948, praying to set aside the order dated 14.09.2021 passed in ESICMA No.1 of 2017 on the file of the Employees Insurance Court, Coimbatore.
Challenging the Order dated September 14, 2021, passed by ‘the Presiding Officer, Principal Labour Court (Employees Insurance Court) Coimbatore' [henceforth 'E.S.I. Court' for brevity] in ESICMA No.1 of 2017, the first respondent therein, namely ‘Employees State Insurance Corporation’ [henceforth ‘ESIC’], has preferred this Civil Miscellaneous Appeal.
2. For the sake of convenience, the parties will hereinafter be referred to as per their array before the E.S.I. Court.
Petitioners' case
3. Petitioners are the parents of the deceased - Rajasekar. The case of the petitioners is that their son - Rajasekar, 20 years old, was working as a Worker in the packing section of the second respondent - Employer for a daily wage of Rs.350/-. The deceased was accommodated within the factory premises. On June 3, 2010 at about 09.30 p.m., their son - Rajasekar fell down from the third floor and sustained injuries. Then he was taken to Revathy Hospital, Tirupur for treatment, where he was declared dead at 12.10 a.m. The next day i.e., on June 4, 2010, the first petitioner lodged a police complaint on the file of Avinashi Police Station, Tirupur at about 07.15 a.m., pursuant to which, First Information Report (FIR) was registered under Section 174 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, in Crime No.1881 of 2010.
4. According to the petitioners, the second respondent - Employer had entered into an Agreement with the petitioners on June 4, 2010, as per which, the second respondent had paid a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- (Rupees One Lakh only) to the petitioners. In the said Agreement, the second respondent had admitted that the accident happened while the deceased was on duty. Further, the second respondent is registered with the Employees State Insurance Corporation (first respondent) viz., Employer’s code : 56-64386-16F. The deceased’s ESI number is 56-03861259.
4.1.The petitioners filed a petition before ‘the Commissioner of Labour under Workman's Compensation Act, Coimbatore’ (hereinafter ‘Commissioner’) in W.C.No.67 of 2010 under Employees' Compensation Act, 1923, praying for compensation from the second respondent. During enquiry, the second respondent - Employer informed the Commissioner that the deceased is an insured person under the ‘Employee State Insurance Act, 1948’ (E.S.I. Act for brevity).
4.2.Thereafter, the Commissioner issued a letter to the first respondent - ESIC requesting for a report in this regard. Accordingly, the first respondent - ESIC issued letter dated April 7, 2011, stating that the second respondent - Employer as well as the deceased was covered under the E.S.I. Act; however, since the accident was ‘not in the course of Employment’, the petitioners are not entitled for dependents’ benefits under E.S.I. Act.
4.3.The Commissioner vide Order dated March 3, 2012 held that the above accident was in and out of the course of employment and hence, the death was ‘employment death’ and accordingly, directed the second respondent - Employer to compensate the petitioners with a sum of Rs.3,96,400/- along with interest.
4.4.According to the petitioners, against the above-mentioned Order of the Commissioner, the second respondent - Employer filed an appeal before this Court in CMA No.2515 of 2012, in which, this Court set aside the Order of the Commissioner, and granted liberty to the petitioners to approach the first respondent - ESIC for extension of dependents’ benefits under E.S.I. Act as well as to thereafter approach the E.S.I. Court, if necessary.
4.5.Accordingly, the petitioners filed Application dated September 17, 2014, before the first respondent, for which the first respondent neither replied nor extended the dependents’ benefits to the petitioners. Therefore, the petitioners filed a pet
The burden of proving an accident during the course of employment lies with the claimant, and the journey from the workplace to home for a lunch break is not considered in the course of employment.
An injury is compensable if it arises out of and in the course of employment, establishing a causal connection between the accident and the workman’s duties.
The judgment establishes the principle that an accident must arise both 'out of' and 'in the course of employment' and considers the concept of 'notional extension' of employment.
Workmen’s compensation - Natural death - Death by heart attack is an accident is well recognized.
The necessity of including all relevant parties in insurance benefit claims is critical for just adjudication.
The court upheld that an employer may be liable for compensation even if a pre-existing health condition contributed to a worker's death if the employment duties exacerbated that condition.
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
