1972 (11) TMI 81 - HC - Indian Laws

It was held that a person could be said to be in the course of his employment only if he was under an obligation, expressed or implied to his employer to do something reasonably incidental thereto. The test in all such cases is whether the employee was exposed to the particular risk by reason of his employment or whether he took the same risks as those incurred by any member of the public using the road. In view of the clear finding of the court that the insured employee was assaulted by the coolie and the cause of the assault was due to an earlier incident of reprimanding him, it was held that the assault that had resulted in an injury to the insured employee arose out of his employment. It was also further held that the injury was sustained by the insured employee during the course of his employment not only when the injury was caused to him while doing something which an employee was under an obligation express or implied to do but also when he was doing something reasonably incidental thereto

Issues Involved:
1. Whether the injury sustained by the appellant arose out of and in the course of his employment.
2. Whether the appellant is entitled to permanent disablement benefit under the Employees' State Insurance Act.

Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:

1. Whether the injury sustained by the appellant arose out of and in the course of his employment:

The appellant, employed as an assistant electrical foreman, was assaulted by a coolie named Shankar outside the mill premises after reprimanding him earlier. The Insurance Court initially dismissed the claim, doubting the connection between the assault and the employment. However, upon appeal, the High Court found that the assault by Shankar was due to the previous incident and arose out of the appellant's employment. The key question was whether the injury occurred in the course of employment since the assault happened on the road outside the mill compound. The Court noted that an employee is in the course of employment while doing something reasonably incidental to his employment. The appellant was leaving the mill premises after handing over his duties to his reliever, which was considered reasonably incidental to his employment. The Court concluded that the injury arose in the course of employment as the appellant was exposed to the risk due to his employment and not as a member of the public.

2. Whether the appellant is entitled to permanent disablement benefit under the Employees' State Insurance Act:

The appellant claimed permanent disablement benefit for the loss of his left eye. Section 51 of the Act provides for such benefits if the injury is permanent and incapacitating. The term "employment injury" under Section 2(8) includes personal injury caused by an accident arising out of and in the course of employment. The Court found that the injury met these criteria since the assault arose out of a work-related incident and occurred while the appellant was performing duties reasonably incidental to his employment. The Court referenced previous judgments, emphasizing that employment extends to activities reasonably incidental to the job and not just the actual work performed. The Court thus held that the appellant suffered an employment injury and was entitled to benefits under the Act.

Conclusion:

The High Court set aside the Insurance Court's dismissal, recognizing the injury as an employment injury. The case was remanded to the Insurance Court to determine the amount of benefit the appellant was entitled to under the Act. The respondents were ordered to pay the costs of the appeal. The costs of the application before the Insurance Court were to be determined upon final disposal of the matter.

← Previous Next →