LexREGIONAL DIRECTOR, E.S.I. CORPN. AND ANR. versus FRANCIS DE COSTA AND ANR.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
REGIONAL DIRECTOR, E.S.I. CORPN. AND ANR. v. FRANCIS DE COSTA AND ANR. MAY 5, 1992 [K. RAMASWAMY AND B.P. JEEVAN REDDY, JJ.] A B _ '- Employees' State Insurance Act, 1949: Sections 2(8), 51A, 51C, 51D, - 75 and 76. 'Employment Injury'-Test to detennine-What is Expressions-'ln the C course of employment' and 'Arising out of employment'-Scope of-Injury caused to employee by Employer's lorry on public road while employee was on way to join duty- Whether arises out of and in the course of employment. 'Employment lnjury'-Relief-Availability of remedy under General Law of tort or unfler Special Law in other Acts-U'hether bars relief under D E.S./. Act. Doctrine of Coming in and Going from Work Place-Exceptions. Maxim-'Eundo Morando, et Redeundo'-Meaning of. Wordf and Phrases: E 'Accident'-Meaning of. Interpretation of Statutes-Social Legislation-Interpretation of. Constitution of India, 1950: Articles 38,39,41 and 43. F Social Justic~orkers-R.ight to health and medical treatment. ' The first-respondent was employed with J.P. Coats (P) Ltd., Koratty. On June 26, 1971 while he was going on his bicycle to join duty, on the road G leading to the factory at a distance of 1 K.M. the Company's lorry hit him on left side or his body and knocked him down on the road. As a result or the accident, he suffered severe injuries and ultimately the Insurance Medical Officer certified that he was totally and permanently in- capacitated to work in the factory. He laid a claim for the benefits before the Regional Director, Employees' State Insurance Corporation which was H 23 24 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1992) 3 s.c;.R. A rejected. Thereupon be fded a claim before the Employees' Insurance Court under Section 75 of the Employees' State Insurance Act, 1948 contending that since the injury was suffered by him while on the way to bis duty, it is an 'employment injury'. The respondent Corporation con- tended that it is not so, inasmuch as the accident took place on a public B road. The Employees' State Insurance Court held in favour of the first- respondent by holding that the respondent was going on the usual route along which be passes and repass~s every day to and from the factory on the cycle purchased by him from the advance given by the employer and was not negligent in riding the cycle. Therefore, the injuries were caused to him in an accident while in the course of bis employment and conse- C quently be was entitled to the benefits under the Act. On appeal the High Court confirmed the findings of the Employees' State Insurance Court. Against the decision of the High Court an appeal was preferred in this Court. D Referring the matter to a larger Bench, this Court, HELD: Per K. RAMASWAMY, J. 1. The respondent was trekking the road to attend to duty which found to be the accustomed route to reach the factory and just few minutes before reporting to duty he was struck by the truck resulting in the employment injury. It, therefore, occurred during E the course of bis employment and thereby be is entitiled to the amount as compensation under the Act. [56 GH, 57-A] 2. In determing whether a given accident occurred in the course of employee's employment, the factual picture as a whole must be looked at, and any approach based on fallacious concept that any one factor is F conclusive must be rejected. The facts are of crucial importance, and the addition to or subtraction of one factor in a given situation may tilt the balance, whereas in another situation the addition or subtraction of the same factor may make no difference. This, however, does not indicate that there are no principles in the light of which a court can decide whether an G employee was acting in the course or arising out of his employment at the material time when the accident bad occurred. [36 D-E] 3. Literal construction of the phrase 'arising out of his employment' conveys the idea that there must be some sort of connection between the employment and the injury caused to a workman due to the accident. But H it is wide enough to cover the case where there may not necessarily be a J. ---Z,_ - i. E.S.I. CORPN. v. FRANCIS DE COSTA 25 direct connection of the workman. There may be circumstances tending to A show that the workman received personal injury due to the accident that arose during the course of or out of his employment. It would not mean that personal injury only must have resulted from the mer
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.