- Bench: Navin Sinha, J., Ashok Bhushan, J.
- Decided on: 06.03.2020
- Relevant Statute: Workmen Compensation Act, 1923 (Now Employee’s Compensation Act, 1923)
Relevant Facts and Procedural History:
1. The appellants are the legal heirs of the deceased. The deceased aged 21, was under the employment of Respondent No. 2 (who stands deleted), and was driving her TATA vehicle from Ambala to Meerut disposing off his employment duty on 11.06.2003.
2. At about 12:30 pm, when the deceased went to the Yamuna canal to fetch water to cool down the business truck and also himself by bathing, he slipped into the canal which resulted in his death.
3. The Commissioner, Workmen’s Compensation Act granted, legal heirs of the deceased, the compensation of Rs. 4,45,420/- with the interest rate of 12% from the date of accident up to the date of deposit in addition to the penalty imposed on the employer under Section 4A(3)(b) of the Workmen’s Compensation Act, 1923 vide Order dated 12.12.2005. On appeal, the High Court set aside the Order of the Commissioner holding that the death hasn’t arose out of the employment vide Order dated 09.05.2014. Hence, this appeal.
Issue:
Whether Hon’ble High Court is correct in holding that the death of the accused has occurred for the reason not related to his employment.
Contentions of Parties:
1. Learned Counsel for Appellants contended that there is a connection between the acts of the deceased which resulted into his death and the employment functions he was disposing off. They also quoted Leela Babi and Anr. vs. Seema Chouhan & Anr., (2019) 4 SCC 325, to strengthen their content.
2. Learned Counsel for Respondent while supporting the decision of the High Court contended that merely because the death has occurred in the course of employment doesn’t necessarily mean that it has occurred due to employment. They quoted Malikarjuna G. Hiremath vs. Branch Manager, Oriental Insurance Company Ltd. and Anr. (2009) 13 SCC 405, to back their argument.
Ratio of the Court: While allowing the appeal, the Court observed the following:
1. The provisions of the Workmen’s Compensation Act, 1923 should be interpreted in such a manner as will advance its purpose and not defeat it.
2. Quoting Manju Sarkar & Ors. vs. Mabish Miah & Ors., (2014) 14 SCC 21, where the deceased met with a deadly accident while repairing some mechanical problem in the truck which occurred while he was in course of his employment; and Daya Kishan Joshi & Anr. vs. Dynemech Systems Pvt. Ltd., (2018) 11 SCC 642, where the deceased met with a deadly accident while returning from the field work required by his employment, the court noted that it was the necessity of circumstances that the deceased had to cooldown his truck as well as himself for the safety of himself and others on road. In both the judgments referred above, the accident was held to be arising out of employment. Therefore, in this case also, the actions of the deceased actions have to be considered as incidental to the employment by extension of notional employment theory.
3. The Court further went on to explain the concept of notional employment theory by referring to the case of Leela Bai & Anr. vs. Seema Chouhan & Anr., (2009) 4 SCC 325, mentioned by the appellant, and B.E.S.T. Undertaking vs. Agnes, AIR 1964 SC 193, as “there may be reasonable extension in both time and place and workman may be regarded as being in the course of his employment even before reaching or after leaving the place of his employment. The facts and circumstances of each case has to be examined carefully, keeping in mind this theory of notional extension.”
Decision held:
1. Appeal Allowed.
2. Order of the High Court dated 09.05.2014 is set aside and the Order of Workmen Compensation Commissioner dated 12.12.2005 is restored.
3. Payment Shall be made within Six weeks from today.
