Dismissed

Sr Branch Manager National Insurance Co. Ltd. Represented through Its Assistant Manager v. Anjor Tete

Jharkhand HC5 Apr 2023MA/97/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This appeal challenged the Labour Court's award of compensation to claimants for the death of an employee in a road accident. The High Court rejected the insurance company's argument that the accident did not arise out of employment and dismissed the appeal, finding no substantial question of law and applying the settled principle of notional extension.

What did the court decide?

Appeal dismissed without costs.

Sr Branch Manager National Insurance Co. Ltd. Represented… — Cheque Dishonour | Jharkhand HC (2023)

¶1

M.A.No.97 of 2021

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI M.A. No.97 of 2021

¶3

(Against the Judgment and Award dated 18.12.2020 passed by Learned Presiding Officer, Labour Court-cum-Employees Compensation Commissioner, Bokaro in E.C. Case No.01 of 2017)

¶4

Sr. Branch Manager, National Insurance Co. Ltd., Chas Branch, P.O. & P.S.- Chas, District- Bokaro, Jharkhand-827013.

¶5

Duly represented through its Assistant Manager, National Insurance Company Limited, Jharkhand Legal Cell, Kutchery Road, Post Office- G.P.O., Police Station- Kotwali, District- Ranchi- 834001

¶6

.... …. Opposite Party No.4/Appellant

¶7

Versus

¶8

(1) Anjor Tete, S/o- Late Patras Tete,

¶9

(2) Sosan Tete, W/o- Anjor Tete

¶10

Both are residents of Sector- 6/B, Qr. No.4182, P.O. & P.S.Sector 6, District- Bokaro, Jharkhand.

¶11

.... …. Applicants/Respondents

¶12

(3) M/s Abhi Engineering, worked under Electrosteel Steel Ltd., P.O. – Jogidih, P.S. – Siyaljori O.P., Chandankiyari, DistrictBokaro, Jharkhand.

¶13

(4) Proprietor, Abhi Engineering, 39, Sultanpur, VillageSultanpur, Anchal – Raghunathpur, P.O. & P.S.Raghunathpur, District- Siwan.

¶14

(5) CEO, Electrosteel Steel Ltd., P.O. – Jogidih, P.S. – Sivaljori, O.P.- Chandankiyari, District- Bokaro, Jharkhand.

¶15

.... …. Opposite Party Nos.1 to 3/Respondents

¶16

For the Appellant : Mr. Pratyush Kumar, Advocate For the Respondents : None

¶17

P R E S E N T

¶18

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR CHOUDHARY

¶19

¶20

M.A.No.97 of 2021

¶21

By the Court : - Heard the learned counsel for the appellant.

¶22

No one turns up on behalf of the respondents in spite of repeated calls, hence, this appeal is heard and disposed of ex-parte against the respondents.

¶23

This appeal, under Section 30 of the Employees Compensation Act, 1923 has been preferred against the Judgment and Award dated 18.12.2020 passed by Learned Presiding Officer, Labour Court-cumEmployees Compensation Commissioner, Bokaro in E.C. Case No.01 of 2017 whereby and where under the Learned Presiding Officer, Labour Court-cum-Employees Compensation Commissioner, Bokaro has awarded a total compensation of Rs.8,15,400/- with simple interest thereon @ 12% per annum to be paid by the appellant- Insurance Company to the claimants besides directing the owner- opposite party Nos.1 and 2 to deposit Rs.5,000/- as funeral expenses of the deceased.

¶24

The brief facts of this case is that the claimants are the father and mother of the deceased- Prafulla Tete who was the employee of the opposite party No.1. The case of the claimants is that on 14.10.2016, the deceased while returning from ‘B’ shift duty from the opposite party No.3- Electrosteel Limited and alighting from the bus, he was dashed by a car as a result of which he died at the spot. In connection with the said occurrence, Sector IV P.S. Case No.160 of 2016 dated 15.10.2016 was registered for the offence punishable under Section 279, 304 A of the Indian Penal Code. The opposite party No.1-employer of the deceased had taken the group insurance from the opposite party No.2- appellantInsurance Company. It is the case of the appellant that monthly salary of the deceased at the time of his death was Rs.10,500/- and he was aged 32 years at the time of accident.

¶25

The opposite party No.1 admitted that he employed the deceasedPrafulla Tete on daily wages basis only for 21 days in September and October, 2016 and the principal employer being the opposite party No.3 provided bus facility to the deceased. Hence, it pleaded that the deceased workman did not die in course of his employment.

¶26

The opposite party No.3 did not file any written-statement/show-

¶27

¶28

M.A.No.97 of 2021

¶29

cause but it appeared through its lawyer.

¶30

The opposite party No.4 in its written-statement challenged the maintainability of the claim application but it admitted that the opposite party No.1 was insured by the opposite party No.4 and the policy was valid from 03.10.2016 to 04.04.2017 but pleaded that the accident did not occur, in course of employment. Hence, the deceased- Prafulla Tete does not come under the purview of group insurance policy.

¶31

The learned Presiding Officer, Labour Court-cum-Employees Compensation Commissioner, Bokaro on the basis of rival pleadings of the parties, framed the following seven issues:-

¶32

i). Whether the case as framed legally maintainable?

¶33

ii). Whether the claim application is barred by law of limitation? iii). Whether the claim application is bad for non-joinder and

¶34

mis-joinder of the parties?

¶35

iv). Whether the deceased called Prafulla Tete was an employee of Opp. Party No.1&2 i.e. M/s Abhi Engg?

¶36

v). Whether is there any cause of action for filing the present claim application?

¶37

vi). Whether the deceased Prafulla Tete died due to accident on 14.10.2016 arising out of and in the course of his employment M/s Abhi Engineering?

¶38

vii). Whether the applicant is entitled to relief as prayed in his claim petition?

¶39

The learned Presiding Officer, Labour Court-cum-Employees Compensation Commissioner, Bokaro, considered the oral testimony of the three witnesses examined by the claimants and the documents which have been marked as Ext. A-1 to A-4 besides considering the documents which were marked as Ext. X to X/2, however no evidence i.e. oral or documentary was adduced by the opposite parties.

¶40

The learned Presiding Officer, Labour Court-cum-Employees Compensation Commissioner first took up issue No.(iv) and considered the oral as well as documentary evidence put forth by the claimants which established that the deceased- Prafulla Tete was working under M/s Abhi Engineering, being the opposite party No.1; as the opposite party Nos.1 and 2 in paragraph-2 of their joint written statement also accepted the said fact. The employer also admitted that it paid Rs.50,000/- to the claimants through cheque, Rs.20,000/- in cash and Rs.10,000/- as miscellaneous

¶41

¶42

M.A.No.97 of 2021

¶43

expenditure. The Presiding Officer, Labour Court-cum-Employees Compensation Commissioner also considered that the opposite party did not have any evidence to the effect that the deceased was not the employee of the opposite party No.1 and the opposite party No. 2, who is the proprietor of the opposite party No.1. The Presiding Officer, Labour Court-cum-Employees Compensation Commissioner considered the settled principle of law that the definition of the employee has stood amended with effect from 18.01.2010 in Section 2 (1) (dd) of the Employees’ Compensation Act, 1923, which now includes the casual employment with the employer also, for the purpose of awarding compensation under the Employees’ Compensation Act and decided the issue No. (iv) in favour of the claimants.

¶44

Thereafter, the learned Presiding Officer, Labour Court-cumEmployees Compensation Commissioner took up issue No. (vi) and came to the conclusion that the applicant has duly proved that the deceasedPrafulla Tete died during the course of his employment while returning from his duty under the opposite party No.1- Abhi Engineering on 14.10.2016 and decided the issue No. (vi) in favour of the claimants as well.

¶45

Then, the learned Presiding Officer, Labour Court-cum-Employees Compensation Commissioner took up issue No. (vii) and came to the conclusion that the claimants are entitled to the compensation of Rs.8,15,400/- from the date of accident i.e., 14.10.2016 with simple interest thereon @ 12% per annum from the opposite party No.4- National Insurance Company Limited and also answered the issue Nos. (i), (ii) and (iii) in favour of the applicants and awarded the said compensation.

¶46

Mr. Pratyush Kumar- learned counsel for the appellant submits that the learned Presiding Officer, Labour Court-cum-Employees Compensation Commissioner failed to take into consideration the fact that the accident which resulted in the death of the deceased- Prafulla Tete could not be treated to have arisen out of or in the course of employment of the deceased as envisaged under Section 3 of the Employees Compensation Act, 1923 more so because the place of occurrence is far away from the factory premises and the bus from which the deceased was

¶47

¶48

M.A.No.97 of 2021

¶49

alighting does not belong to the principal employer- opposite party No.3. It is next submitted that the notional extension of the work place is not applicable in the instant case. Mr. Pratyush Kumar relies upon the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Saurashtra Salt Manufacturing Company vs. Bai Valu Raja and Others reported in AIR 1958 SC 881 which was a judgment before the amendment of Employees Compensation Act, 1923 with effect from 18.01.2010 and the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India held that there may be reasonable extension in both time and place and a workman may be regarded as in the course of his employment even though he had not reached or had left his employer's premises and para-7 of the said judgment reads as under:-

¶50

“7. As a rule, the employment of a workman does not commence until he has reached the place of employment and does not continue when he has left the place of employment, the journey to and from the place of employment being excluded. It is now well-settled, however, that this is subject to the theory of notional extension of the employer's premises so as to include an area which the workman passes and repasses in going to and in leaving the actual place of work. There may be some reasonable extension in both time and place and a workman may be regarded as in the course of his employment even though he had not reached or had left his employer's premises. The facts and circumstances of each case will have to be examined very carefully in order to determine whether the accident arose out of and in the course of the employment of a workman, keeping in view at all times this theory of notional extension.” (Emphasis supplied)

¶51

In this respect, the learned counsel for the appellant also relies upon the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the case of General Manager, B.E.S.T. Undertaking, Bombay vs. Mrs. Agnes reported in AIR 1964 SC 193 wherein in the facts of that case where the drivers of the Best Undertaking were given free transport facility in buses owned by the undertaking from depot to his house and vice-versa and the driver met with an accident while going home from depot, it was held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India that the accident occurred during the course of his employment. Hence, it is submitted that the impugned judgment and award be set aside.

¶52

Having heard the submission of the learned counsel for the appellant and after going through the materials available in the record it is

¶53

¶54

M.A.No.97 of 2021

¶55

pertinent to mention here that it is a settled principle of law that an appeal under the Employees’ Compensation Act can be entertained only when substantial question of law is involved and not against the finding of fact recorded by the Commissioner of Workmen Compensation as has been reiterated by a Division Bench of this Court in the case of Divisional Manager,New India Insurance Company Ltd. with Ratan Prasad Agarwal Vs. Dharam Deo Paswan and others with Ram Kumari Devi & Another reported in 2011 3 JCR 155 (Jhr).

¶56

Now, coming to the facts of this case. In this case the three witnesses of the applicants have categorically stated in their examination-in-chief filed in the shape of affidavit that the deceased died during the course of his employment while returning from his duty. It is a settled principle of law that if there is a nexus to the resultant death or injury and the employment of the deceased or injured as the case may be and if such death takes place while the deceased or injured was on duty or even if not doing actually the work assigned to him, the injury or death would be considered to be in the course of and during the employment. As has been held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Mackinnon Mackenzie and Co. (P) Ltd. v. Ibrahim Mahmmed. Issak reported in (1969) 2 SCC 607 paragraphs-5 of which read as under:-

¶57

5. To come within the Act the injury by accident must arise both out of and in the course of employment. The words “in the course of the employment” mean “in the course of the work which the workman is employed to do and which is incidental to it.” The words “arising out of employment” are understood to mean that “during the course of the employment, injury has resulted from some risk incidental to the duties of the service, which, unless engaged in the duty owing to the master, it is reasonable to believe the workman would not otherwise have suffered.” In other words there must be a causal relationship between the accident and the employment. Xxxxxxxx (emphasis supplied)

¶58

Further as held by the Apex Court in the case of Saurashtra Salt Manufacturing Company vs. Bai Valu Raja and Others (supra) as also in the case of General Manager, B.E.S.T. Undertaking, Bombay vs. Mrs. Agnes (supra) It is now well-settled, that the rule, that the employment of a workman does not commence until he has reached the place of

¶59

¶60

M.A.No.97 of 2021

¶61

employment and does not continue when he has left the place of employment, the journey to and from the place of employment being excluded; is subject to the theory of notional extension of the employer's premises so as to include an area which the workman passes and repasses in going to and in leaving the actual place of work. There may be some reasonable extension in both time and place and a workman may be regarded as in the course of his employment even though he had not reached or had left his employer's premises.

¶62

In this case no evidence has been adduced on behalf of the opposite parties. The opposite party No.1 has admitted the relationship of employer and employee and admitted paying Rs.50,000/- through cheque, Rs.20,000/- in cash besides Rs.10,000/- as miscellaneous expenditure. The fact remains undisputed that the deceased died while going back from his place of employment. In view of the settled principle of law, it is immaterial whether he was going by the conveyance provided by the employer or by any other mode.

¶63

Under such circumstances, this Court is of the considered view that there is absolutely no substantial question of law involved in this appeal. Accordingly, this appeal, being without any merit, is dismissed but under the circumstances without any costs. 18. Let a copy of this judgment be sent to the court concerned forthwith.

¶64

(Anil Kumar Choudhary, J . )

¶65

High Court of Jharkhand, Ranchi Dated the 05^th of April, 2023 AFR/ Animesh

¶66

Sr Branch Manager National Insurance Co. Ltd. Represented through Its Assistant Manager v. Anjor Tete

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sr Branch Manager National Insurance Co. Ltd. Represented through Its Assistant Manager v. Anjor Tete

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Abhishek Kumar Singh Alias Abhishek Singh Vs the State of Jharkhand

Jiten Hiralal Somya Alias Jatin Harilal Somaiya Vs the State of Jharkhand

Tanmoy Sen Gupta Vs the State of Jharkhand

National Insurance Company Limited through Assistant Manager Jharkhand Legal Cell Vs Makhi Jerai Alias Manki Jerai

Ashish Kumar Vs the State of Jharkhand

Manik Lal Ghosh Vs Ramu Sarkar And Ors.