Employees’ Compensation Act, 1923 – Employees’ State Insurance Act, 1948 – Victim-watchman died in an accident while going to the factory-place of work – Claim filed – The employer and the insurance company set up the defence that the accident had not arisen out of or in the course of his employment, since the accident occurred outside the precincts of the factory – The Commissioner for Workmen’s Compensation and Civil Judge allowed compensation – However, the High Court reversed the findings of the Commissioner and held that since the deceased was on his way to his employment, the accident cannot be said to have its origin in the employment – Correctness:
Held: The phrase “accident arising out of and in the course of his employment” occurring in s.3 of the EC Act to include accident occurring to an employee while commuting from his residence to the place of employment for duty or from the place of employment to his residence after performing duty, provided the nexus between the circumstances, time and place in which the accident occurred and the employment is established – The deceased was a night watchman and was dutifully proceeding to his workplace to be well on time, there was a clear nexus between the circumstances, time and place in which the accident occurred and his employment as watchman – The accident having clearly arisen out of and in the course of employment, the Commissioner for Workmen’s Compensation and Civil Judge was justified in ordering the claim under the EC Act. [Paras 55-56]
Employees’ State Insurance Act, 1948 – s.51E – Is s.51E of the ESI Act Clarificatory – Whether s.51E, enacted on 01.06.2010, will have retrospective application:
Held: It is settled that an Act will be declaratory if it is intended to remove doubts and if its object was to supply an obvious omission or to clear up any ambiguity as to the meaning of a previously existing statute – In such an event, the said statute being declaratory and clarificatory in nature, it can be given retrospective effect – s.51E, enacted on 01.06.2010 – There is a parade of case law which highlight that there was considerable doubt and ambiguity surrounding the phrase “accident arising out of and in the course of employment” insofar as cases concerning accident occurring to employees while proceeding to work and vice versa, and different rulings had, depending on facts, interpreted them differently – Even the theory of notional extension had its own peculiarities – It was to clarify and put beyond doubt the meaning of the phrase “accident arising out of and in the course of employment” insofar as accidents occurring to employees while proceeding to the workplace and vice versa that s.51E was enacted in the ESI Act – In view of that, there is no manner of doubt that the said amendment is clarificatory in character and will have retrospective effect. [Paras 25, 44] Employees’ State Insurance Act, 1948 – s.51E – “Deemed to have” – Meaning of – Discussed:
Held: The words “deemed to have” used in s.51E is not in the context of legal fiction – It is well settled that the expression “deemed” is sometimes used to impose for the purpose of a statute an artificial construction for a word or phrase that would not otherwise prevail – Very often, it is also used to put beyond doubt a particular construction that might otherwise be uncertain – Sometimes it is used to give a comprehensive description that it includes what is obvious, what is uncertain and what is, in the ordinary sense, impossible – The word “deemed” in s.51E is employed to put beyond doubt a particular construction, that hitherto was uncertain. [Paras 45-46]
Employees’ Compensation Act, 1923 – s.3 – Employees’ State Insurance Act, 1948 – s.2(8) – Statutes ‘In Pari Materia’: Held: First of all, the operative phraseology occurring in s.3 of the EC Act is the same as the one that it occurs in s.2(8) of the ESI Act which defines, ‘employment injury’ – Secondly, as held by this Court and as noticed hereinabove, both Acts are beneficial legislations intended as social security measures to ameliorate the conditions of employees – The only difference between the two statutes was that while the ESI Act applied to factories and notified establishments, the EC Act applied to other employers, as defined – It is well settled that where statutes in pari materia serve a common object in absence of any provision indicating to the contrary, it is permissible for a court of law to ascertain the meaning of the provision in the enactment by comparing its language with the other enactment relating to the same subject matter – Therefore, the phrase “accident arising out of and in the course of his employment” occurring in s.3 of the EC Act to include accident occurring to an employee while commuting from his residence to the place of employment for duty or from the place of employment to his residence after performing duty, provided the nexus between the circumstances, time and place in which the accident occurred and the employment is established. [Paras 48, 49, 55] Employees’ State Insurance Act, 1948 – Beneficial nature of – Discussed. [Paras 18-21]
Employees’ Compensation Act, 1923 – Beneficial Nature of – Discussed. [Paras 22-23]
As published in the Supreme Court Reports, Supreme Court of India. Headnotes prepared by: Ankit Gyan. Text from the Indian Supreme Court Judgments open data set (Dattam Labs), CC BY 4.0.
This page is for informational and research purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. Consult a qualified advocate for advice specific to your situation.