Compensation under the Workmen's Compensation Act requires a causal connection between the accident and employment; the ECC's findings were upheld as they were based on factual evidence.

JUDGMENT :

1. This appeal is filed challenging the order in E.C.C.No.43 of 2018 dated 30.01.2024 on the files of the Employees Compensation Commissioner (ECC), Idukki, Peermade. The appellants were the opposite parties and the respondents were the applicants in the said proceedings. Parties are hereinafter referred to as per their status before the ECC.

2. Applicants are the wife and children of deceased M.G. Madhusoodanan who was a Thakil player employed under the opposite parties. He had a fall in the premises of the Puthiyakavu Devaswom Temple on 18.10.2014. He was on night duty. He was taken to the hospital in the early morning of 19.10.2014 with severe pain due to a cervical spine injury. He underwent treatment and a major surgery on 29.10.2014. However, he succumbed to death on 15.11.2014. Terming his death as arising from an accident in the course of employment with the opposite parties, the applicants moved the ECC seeking compensation of Rs.5,84,800/- invoking the provisions of the Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act').

3. The ECC framed five issues and parties adduced evidence. Exhibits A1 to A7 were marked and AW1 and AW2 were examined by the applicants. Exts.R1 and R2 were marked and RW1 was examined by the opposite parties. After hearing, the ECC vide order impugned, awarded a compensation of Rs.5,84,800/- with 12% interest and cost. The opposite parties challenge the same in this appeal.

4. The substantial question for consideration is as follows:

“Can an employee who was not holding any duty in the temple as of the date of the alleged incident be entitled to Workmen's Compensation and whether such incident can be termed as one caused during the course of employment?”

5. Heard Sri.Santhosh Kumar G., Advocate for the appellants/opposite parties and Sri.Gopakumar R.Thaliyal for the respondents/ applicants.

6. The learned counsel for the opposite parties submitted that even the application before the ECC itself was hopelessly barred by limitation as it was filed 4 years after the incident. As per section 10 of the Act, the application has to be filed within a period of 2 years and the Commissioner has the power to entertain an application after the expiry of the period of 2 years only if proper reason has been shown. No justifiable or proper reason has been shown to condone the delay in filing this appeal. The ECC had proceeded on surmises and conjectures rather than on facts and legal principles. There has been no finding to the effect that the injury sustained by the deceased employee had occurred during the course of his employment. The learned counsel relying on the register regarding night duty (Kidamura register) which was maintained by the opposite parties does not reveal that the deceased was on night duty on the relevant date. The deceased was employed as a Thakil player. The death was not during the course of playing the Thakil at the temple. The factual aspects that lead to the death of the deceased as put forth do not reveal any connection whatsoever with the employment of the deceased. AW2 who was examined from the side of the applicant had during cross examination confronted with the Kidamura register and he had admitted that on the relevant day, the deceased employee was not on duty. This crucial evidence was ignored by the ECC. There was no night duty as alleged and night duty was assigned only in cases of urgency. Persons employed as the Thakil players are not assigned night duties, especially as Kidamura. There were no eyewitnesses to the alleged incident and yet the ECC held that the deceased employee had met with the accident while on duty. There was no direct evidence before the ECC to come to such a conclusion. The ECC should have relied on Exts.R1 and R2 Kidamura register which clearly proves the fact that on 18.10.2014 the deceased employee was not holding any duty in the temple. The injury and the death were not arising out of or in the course of employment. Ther