LexTHE REGIONAL DIRECTOR, E.S.I. CORPORATION AND ANR. versus FRANCIS DE COSTA AND ANR.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
THE REGIONAL DIRECTOR, E.S.I. CORPORATION AND ANR. A v. , FRANCIS DE COSTA AND ANR. ....,. SEPTEMBER 11, 1996 (A.M. AHMADI, C.J., SUHAS C.SEN AND SUJATA V. B MANOHAR, JJ.) Labour Law : Employees' State I11sura11ce Act, 1948: Sections 2(8) a11d 51-C. c Employment injury-Employee suffered injwy caused by accident while going to his place of employment 011 his bicycl&--Employee was to rep01t for duty within a short tim&--Accide11t took pl~ce at a sh01t distance from his place of employment-Held : employment of workman did 11ot commence until he reached place of employme11t-Wlzat happened before was not i11 D course of employment-Injury should have wisen out of and in the course of employme11t-171e accident must have its origin i11 the employment. Disablement benefit--Claim to-lfcld : in order to succeed employee must prove that accident had casual co1111ection with his work a11d suffered ill the course of his work and suffered in the course of his employment. E Words and Phrases : ''Arising ollt of a11d in the course of his employme11t''-,!Jea11i11g of-In the context of S.2(8) of the Employees' State Insurance Act, 1948. F The respondent while going to his place of employment, a factory, on a bicycle met with an accident at a place which was about one kilometer away from the factory. The accident occurred at 4.15 p.m. while his _;. duty-shift was to commence at 4.30 p.m. The respondent's collar-bone was .... fractured as a result of the accident. The respondent's claim for disable· G ment benefit was allowed by the Employees' State Insurance Court. The appeal filed against that order was dismissed by the High Court. Being aggrieved the appellant preferred the present appeal. The question before this Court was whether the said injury amounted to 'employment injury' within the meaning of Section 2(8) of the Employees' State Insurance Act, 1948 entitling the respondent to claim disablement benefit. H 797 798 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (1996) SUPP. 5 S.C.R. A Allowing the appeal, this Court B HELD : 1.1. In view of the definition of "employment injury" in Section 2(8) of the Employees' State Insurance Act, 1948, in order to succeed in his claim to disablement benefit, the respondent-employee must prove that the injury he had suffered arose out of and was in the course of his employment. Both the conditions will have to be fulfilled before the employee could claim any benefit under the Act. The injury suffered by the employee did not ;irise in any way out of his employment. Unless it can be said that his employment began as soon as he set out for the factory from his home, it cannot be said that the injury was caused by an accident C "arising out of ........ his employment". A road accident may happen anywhere at any time. But such accident cannot be said to have arisen out of employment unless it can be shown that the employee was doing some- thing incidental to his employment. (802-C-F] 1.2. By using the words "arising out of ....... his employment", the D Legislature gave a restrictive meaning to "employment injury". The injury must be of such an extent as can he attributed to an accident or an occupational disease arising out of his employment. "Out of', in this context must mean caused by employment. Of course, the phrase "out of' has an exclusive meaning also. If a man is described to be out of his E employment, it means he is without a job. In the context of Section 2(8), the words "out ol" indicate that the injury must be caused by an accident which had its origin in the employment. A mere road accident, while an employee is on his way to his place of employment cannot be said to have its origin in his employment in the factory. (802-G-H; 803-A] F Webster's Comprehensive Dictionary (Intemational Edition, 1984), referred to. 2. The other words of limitation in Section 2(8) of the Act is "in the course of his employment". The dictionary meaning indicates that the accident must take place within or during the period of employment. If the G employee's work shift begins at 4.30 P.M., any accident before that time will not be "in the course of his employment". The journey to the factory may have been undertaken for working at the factory at 4.30 P.M. But this journey was certainly not in course of employment. If "employment" begins from the moment the employee sets out from his house for the factory, H then even if the employee stumbles and falls
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.