Case Note & Summary
The appeal arose from a judgment and award passed by the Commissioner for Workmen's Compensation in W.C.A. No. 28 of 2005, awarding compensation to the dependents of deceased Shahu Jadhavar. Shahu Jadhavar was employed as a watchman by Terna Shetkari Sahakari Sakhar Karkhana Ltd. and died in a road accident on 22 April 2003 while travelling from his residence to the factory on his motorbike. The factory had obtained a workmen's compensation insurance policy from the Oriental Insurance Company Ltd. The dependents filed a claim for compensation under the Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923. The Commissioner held that the death occurred during the course of employment and directed the insurance company and the employer to jointly and severally pay Rs. 3,26,140 with interest. The insurance company challenged the award, contending that the accident did not arise out of and in the course of employment, as it occurred on a public road while the employee was commuting, and there was no causal connection with his employment. The employer supported the insurance company’s stance, while the dependents argued that since the employee was proceeding to work and no service quarter was provided, the accident was in the course of employment, and the insurance company was liable. The court framed the key issue whether the death while commuting to work could be construed as death in the course of employment. After examining the legal position, particularly the Supreme Court decision in Regional Director, E.S.I. Corporation v. Francis De Costa, the court held that for an accident to be compensable, it must have its origin in the employment and a mere commute does not establish that nexus. The court found no evidence of a causal connection between the accident and the employment. Consequently, the appeal was allowed, the award was set aside, and the claim petition was dismissed.
Headnote
A) Labour Law - Workmen's Compensation - Meaning of "arising out of and in the course of employment" - Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923, Section 3 - The court examined the requirement that an accident must have a causal connection with the employment to be compensable. Relying on Regional Director, E.S.I. Corporation v. Francis De Costa, the court held that a road accident while commuting to work, without a nexus to the employment, does not arise out of employment. The phrase "out of" indicates origin in the employment, and "in the course of" requires occurrence during the period of employment. Held that the death of the employee while riding his motorbike to the factory did not arise out of and in the course of employment, as the accident occurred away from the workplace and no causal link was established (Paras 10-11).
Issue of Consideration
Whether the death of the employee, the workmen, while he was proceeding to work, could be construed as the death caused in the course of employment.
Final Decision
The appeal was allowed. The judgment and award of the Commissioner dated 26/06/2009 were set aside. The claim petition W.C.A. No. 28 of 2005 was dismissed. The court held that the death did not arise out of and in the course of employment, and the insurance company was not liable.
Law Points
- Compensation under Workmen's Compensation Act requires accident to arise out of and in course of employment
- causal connection between accident and employment necessary
- commuting accident does not have its origin in employment
- insurance policy covers only workmen's compensation risk if accident is compensable under the Act
