Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 6 of 6 (0.27 seconds)

The Regional Director,E.S.I. ... vs Francis De Costa & Anr on 11 September, 1996

6. The learned counsel for the appellant then contended that there is no material on record to show that the accident had arisen out of and in course of employment. The learned counsel for the appellant has placed reliance upon the decision of the Supreme Court reported in Regional Director, E.S.I. Corporation and Anr. v. Francis De Costa and Anr., AIR 1997 SC 432 : 1996 (6) SCC 1 : 1997-I-LLJ-34 in support of his contention. In the aforesaid case, the employee met with an accident one kilometre away from the place of his employment while he was on his way to the factory where he was employed and application claiming disablement benefit was allowed. While interpreting the meaning of the expression "arising out of and in course of employment" the Supreme Court observed as follows at p. 43 of LLJ:
Supreme Court of India Cites 13 - Cited by 63 - Full Document

Mackinnon Mackenzie & Co. Pvt. Ltd vs Ibrahim Mahommed Issak on 14 August, 1969

In the above context, it has to be remembered as observed by the Supreme Court in the decision reported in Mackinnon Mackenzie case (supra), the expression "arising out of employment" is not confined to the mere nature of employment, the expression applies to employment as such to its nature, its conditions, its obligations and its incidents. If by reason of any of these factors, the workman is brought within the zone of special danger, the injury would be one which 'arises out of employment'.
Supreme Court of India Cites 2 - Cited by 198 - V Ramaswami - Full Document
1