Punjab-Haryana High Court
Manjit Kaur Widow Of Late Balraj Singh ... vs The Employee State Insurance ... on 12 March, 2012
Author: K. Kannan
Bench: K. Kannan
C.W.P. No.4012 of 2004 -1-
IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT
CHANDIGARH
C.W.P. No.4012 of 2004
Date of Decision.12.03.2012
Manjit Kaur widow of late Balraj Singh and others .....Petitioners
Versus
The Employee State Insurance Corporation and others .....Respondents
Present: Mr. Pawan Kumar, Senior Advocate with Mr. Amit Aggarwal, Advocate for the petitioner.
Mr. Brijeshwar Singh Bhalla, Advocate for respondent Nos.1 to 3.
Mr. R.S. Ahluwalia, Advocate for respondent No.4.
CORAM:HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K. KANNAN
1. Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment ? No
2. To be referred to the Reporters or not ? No
3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? No
-.-
K. KANNAN J.
1. The petitioner's husband, who was a contributory to the Employees' State Insurance Fund for family pension sought for the benefit provided under Rule 28 of the Family Pension Scheme of 1971 on the basis that the petitioner had died during the course of his employment from the place of work in a motor accident. He joined as a Driver with the Pepsu State Road Transport Corporation, took the bus from Patiala to Narnaul and he was required to stay at Narnaul bus stand. The duty hours were off after 6.30 PM but instead of staying at the bus stand, he proceeded to go to his house in his personal vehicle and died on his way home. It could be noticed that the death had C.W.P. No.4012 of 2004 -2- occurred during the duty hours when he was going from his place to his house, for whatever reason. The claim was rejected on the ground that the accident did not take place in the course of employment. It is this order of dismissal, which is made the subject of challenge before this Court.
2. It is contended by the respondent-Corporation that the petitioner had committed a dereliction of duty by leaving the bus stand during the office hours and the death could not be said to be an accident arising out of course of employment. The issue of whether a person should be actually in the working place to answer the description to employment injury have come up for consideration before various Courts and reading the provisions of the ESI as a beneficial legislation, there have been certain notional extensions of the place of work in diverse jurisdictions. In Employees' State Insurance Corporation Vs. Purushothaman 2002 (1) ACJ 675, the accident had occurred while the employee was travelling in the transport provided by the employer while he was going towards his house. The Court ruled that the accident had taken place in the course of employment. The difference in this case was that the petitioner was going in his private vehicle and not in the vehicle of the employer. Again the accident was after the duty hours but however, the Supreme Court held that there was a notional extension of the time and space when it regarded the death as resulting in the course of employment. The place of accident was not even the place of work. The accident was again beyond the office hours. Even then the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that it was an employment injury. In Satya Bhama Vs. ESIC 1992 (1) LLJ 831, the Kerala High Court was C.W.P. No.4012 of 2004 -3- dealing with a person joining the factory, signing off the register and later while returning home was hit by a scooter on public road in front of the factory gate when the Court held that it was an employment injury. In Mehrunisha Ahmed Khan Vs. ESI 1995(2) LLJ 1, the Gujarat High Court held that a workman, while returning home was assaulted by a mob during communal riot and had died, must be taken as having suffered employment injury. Similar was the view held by the Karnataka High Court in Regional Director, ESIC Vs. L. Ranga Rao 1982 ILLJ 29 where a notional extension of the time and place from the actual place of employment was applied to treat an injury as employment injury. The only decision that is still required to be examined is the decision of Regional Director ESIC and another Vs.Francis De Costs and another 1994 (Suppl) IV SCC 102, where the Supreme Court was dealing with the case of a person having an accident outside the factory and outside the office hours and the Hon'ble Supreme Court rejected that there was a causal connection between the accident and the employment.
5. It would be seen, therefore, that the employment injury need not necessarily be in the place of employment. It need not again be within the hours of employment itself. Certain notional extension is always possible so long as the proximity to employment in terms of time and place exist. In this case, the petitioner was well within the duty hours but was going towards home after leaving the bus at the shed and he had perforce to return to his place of employment. Learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner also refers to a judgment of the Kerala High Court in Management of Oriental Transport Ltd. Vs. B.T. Ramakrishna and another etc. 2006(1) SCT 228 where a workman C.W.P. No.4012 of 2004 -4- staying in a bus for commencing his trip early morning went out to take bath but drowned in the stream while taking bath before commencing his duty. The Division Bench held that it must be taken as an accident arising out of his employment.
6. I have no doubt in my mind that the petitioner's death must be taken only as having been in the course of employment and therefore, the petitioner was entitled to dependent benefit as contemplated by the ESI Corporation of 1950. The impugned orders are quashed and the writ petition is allowed. The amount due to the petitioner shall be paid with interest @12% from the date of filing of the claim before the ESI Corporation till the date of payment.
(K. KANNAN) JUDGE March 12, 2012 Pankaj*