<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<?xml-stylesheet type="text/xsl" href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_sitemap/rss_feed_blog.xsl?v=1750492856"?>
<rss version="2.0" xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom">
  <channel>
    <title>1972 (11) TMI 81 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=126749</link>
    <description>An assault suffered by an employee just outside the mill gate while leaving work was treated as an employment injury under the Employees&#039; State Insurance Act, 1948, because it arose out of and in the course of insurable employment. The injury was linked to an earlier work-related incident, satisfying the &quot;arising out of&quot; requirement. For the &quot;in the course of&quot; test, the employee was still engaged in conduct reasonably incidental to duties when handing over charge and leaving the workplace before normal duty hours ended, and the risk remained attributable to employment rather than mere presence as a member of the public. The injury was therefore held compensable as employment injury.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Tue, 21 Nov 1972 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Thu, 27 Dec 2012 16:09:12 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=163638" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1972 (11) TMI 81 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=126749</link>
      <description>An assault suffered by an employee just outside the mill gate while leaving work was treated as an employment injury under the Employees&#039; State Insurance Act, 1948, because it arose out of and in the course of insurable employment. The injury was linked to an earlier work-related incident, satisfying the &quot;arising out of&quot; requirement. For the &quot;in the course of&quot; test, the employee was still engaged in conduct reasonably incidental to duties when handing over charge and leaving the workplace before normal duty hours ended, and the risk remained attributable to employment rather than mere presence as a member of the public. The injury was therefore held compensable as employment injury.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Indian Laws</law>
      <pubDate>Tue, 21 Nov 1972 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=126749</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>