Back
2024 Supreme(Online)(MAD) 22613
HIGH COURT OF MADRAS
Honourable Mr.Justice R.SAKTHIVEL
THE MANAGEMENT – Appellant
Versus
N.AARAN @ ARUCHAMY – Respondent
CMA NO.13 OF 2022 AND CMP NO.100 OF 2022
For Appellant :Ms.G.Narmadha For Respondents 1&2:Mr.A.Deivasigamani For Respondent 3: Mr.D.M.Senthilkumar
The court established that an accident occurring on employer-provided premises can be deemed an employment injury, entitling dependents to benefits under the E.S.I. Act.
Headnote:
Employment - Employees State Insurance Act - Sections 2(8), 52 - The court interpreted the provisions of the E.S.I. Act, determining that the accident occurred in the course of employment, thus entitling the dependents to benefits under the Act.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioners, parents of the deceased worker, sought compensation after their son fell from the factory premises. The employer admitted the accident occurred during employment, but the E.S.I. Corporation denied liability, claiming it was not an employment injury.
Issues: Whether the deceased's accident occurred in the course of employment and whether the petitioners are entitled to dependents' benefits under the E.S.I. Act.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the accident was connected to the deceased's employment, as he was residing on-site for the employer's convenience, thus establishing a causal link between the employment and the injury.
Final Decision: The Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is dismissed, confirming the E.S.I. Court's order.
J U D G M E N T
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 petition before the E.S.I. Court praying for extension of dependents’ benefits under the E.S.I. Act.
1 s t Respondent’s case
5.The first respondent – ESIC filed counter stating that the accident is not an industrial accident nor was it in the co
