<?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>1981 (5) TMI 136 - GUJARAT HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=462998</link>
    <description>The notional extension doctrine can bring a nearby place outside the factory within the course of employment when a workman is reasonably proceeding to duty, so physical presence inside the premises is not decisive. On the facts, the employee had left home in time, reached the bus stop to board transport to the factory, and collapsed there; the accident was therefore treated as occurring in the course of employment. The injury was also held to arise out of employment because strenuous work, prior complaints of giddiness and chest discomfort, cardiac failure, and evidence of pre-existing illness aggravated by work strain established the required causal nexus. The dependents were thus entitled to statutory employment-injury benefits under the Act, with quantification left to the Employees&#039; Insurance Court.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Tue, 05 May 1981 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Wed, 30 Jul 2025 18:31:23 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=839726" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1981 (5) TMI 136 - GUJARAT HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=462998</link>
      <description>The notional extension doctrine can bring a nearby place outside the factory within the course of employment when a workman is reasonably proceeding to duty, so physical presence inside the premises is not decisive. On the facts, the employee had left home in time, reached the bus stop to board transport to the factory, and collapsed there; the accident was therefore treated as occurring in the course of employment. The injury was also held to arise out of employment because strenuous work, prior complaints of giddiness and chest discomfort, cardiac failure, and evidence of pre-existing illness aggravated by work strain established the required causal nexus. The dependents were thus entitled to statutory employment-injury benefits under the Act, with quantification left to the Employees&#039; Insurance Court.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Indian Laws</law>
      <pubDate>Tue, 05 May 1981 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=462998</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>