1996 (9) TMI 562 - SC - Indian Laws

Workman covered by employment when within workplace or its notional extension; travel from home not automatically included

The Regional Director, ESI. Versus Francis De Costa & Anr

The SC held that a workman may be considered in the course of employment even when he has not yet reached or has left the employer's premises in certain ... It was held by the Supreme Court that a workman might be regarded as in the course of his employment even though he had not reached or had left his employers premises in some special cases. The facts and circumstances of each case would have to be examined whether the accident arose out of and in the course of employment of a workman, keeping in view at all times this theory of notional extension. A workman is not in the course of his employment from moment he leaves his home and is on his way to his work. He certainly is in the course of his employment if he reaches the place of work or a point or an are which comes within the theory of notional extension. Issues Involved:1. Whether the injury suffered by the respondent qualifies as an 'employment injury' under Section 2(8) of the Employees' State Insurance Act, 1948.2. Interpretation of 'arising out of and in the course of his employment' under Section 2(8).3. Applicability of Section 51-C regarding accidents happening while traveling in the employer's transport.4. Examination of precedents and principles related to 'in the course of employment.'Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:1. Whether the injury suffered by the respondent qualifies as an 'employment injury' under Section 2(8) of the Employees' State Insurance Act, 1948:The respondent, an employee, met with an accident while traveling to his place of employment. The injury was sustained one kilometer away from the factory, 15 minutes before his shift began. The primary question was whether this injury could be classified as an 'employment injury' under Section 2(8) of the Employees' State Insurance Act, 1948, which defines 'employment injury' as a personal injury caused by an accident or occupational disease arising out of and in the course of employment.2. Interpretation of 'arising out of and in the course of his employment' under Section 2(8):The court analyzed the phrase 'arising out of and in the course of his employment' and concluded that both conditions must be met for an injury to qualify as an employment injury. The injury must be caused by an accident that has its origin in the employment and must occur during the period of employment. The court emphasized that the journey to the factory, undertaken for work, does not constitute being in the course of employment. The employment begins when the employee reaches the place of work, and any accident occurring before that time is not considered to have arisen out of employment.3. Applicability of Section 51-C regarding accidents happening while traveling in the employer's transport:Section 51-C deems accidents occurring while an insured person is traveling as a passenger in the employer's vehicle to or from the place of work as arising out of and in the course of employment. However, this provision did not apply in the present case as the respondent was traveling on his own bicycle, not in any vehicle provided by the employer.4. Examination of precedents and principles related to 'in the course of employment':The court referred to several precedents to interpret the meaning of 'in the course of employment.' In the case of Saurashtra Salt Manufacturing Co. v. Bai Valu Raja, it was held that employment does not commence until the employee reaches the place of employment. The court also referred to the decision in General Manager, B.E.S.T. Undertaking, Bombay v. Mrs. Agnes, where it was held that an employee traveling in a vehicle provided by the employer could be considered to be in the course of employment. However, this was not applicable in the present case as the respondent was not traveling in an employer-provided vehicle.The court also analyzed the decisions in Sadgunaben Amrutlal v. The Employees State Insurance Corporation and Bhagubai v. Central Railway, Bombay, and concluded that the facts of these cases were dissimilar to the present case. The court emphasized that there must be a causal connection between the accident and the employment, and the accident must occur during the period of employment.Conclusion:The court concluded that the injury suffered by the respondent did not qualify as an 'employment injury' under Section 2(8) of the Employees' State Insurance Act, 1948, as it did not arise out of and in the course of his employment. The appeal was allowed, and the judgment of the High Court was set aside. The respondent was entitled to retain the compensation already paid, and the appellants were directed to bear the costs of the appeal.