Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 11 (0.24 seconds)
United India Insurance Co. Ltd. vs K.N. Thipperudraiah And Ors. on 14 August, 1996 cites

P. Asokan vs Western India Plywoods Ltd., Cannanore on 22 December, 1986

18. It is vehemently argued by the Learned Counsel for the respondents that it is a tortious liability. It is no doubt true that the accident occurred on the main road but while they were travelling in the vehicle provided by the employer, that means any injury sustained by them in the motor vehicle accident as detailed above, is an employment injury. Under those circumstances, they cannot say that as it is tortious liability they are entitled to the benefit. Further, they have also relied on a decision reported in P. ASOKAN v. WESTERN INDIA PLYWOODS LTD. M CANNANORE . In that case, the appellant therein suffered an employment injury. He had filed a suit against his employer claiming compensation not based on any enactments. He also filed an application under Order 33 Rule 5 CPC. The Trial Court while considering the application under Order 33 Rule 5 of CPC., held that the suit itself was not maintainable on account of the bar contained under Sections 53 and 61 of the E.S.I. Act and dismissed the suit. The plaintiff preferred an appeal against that order before the Kerala High Court and the matter was referred to the Full Bench. The Full Bench has held that if the appellant had paid Court fee, the Court could not have dismissed the suit at the threshold holding that the suit is not maintainable. Therefore, the Court held that the dismissed order was not sustainable. While allowing that appeal, the Full Court has held that the scheme of E.S.I. Act on a dose analysis, takes care of only such liabilities as are geared to the, employment injury. They did not purport to deal with the tortious liability of an employer. The enactment is not one intended to relieve the employer of the alleged hardship arising out of a multiplicity of liabilities, which is simultaneously a tort under common law and violation of a statutory provision. A different view would produce patently discriminatory results which could hardly be upheld by an alert judicial mind.
Kerala High Court Cites 16 - Cited by 16 - M F Beevi - Full Document
1   2 Next