Skip to main content

Employees Compensation and Doctrine of Notional Extension of employer's premises

In Supreme Court, CIVIL APPEAL NO(s). 931 OF 201, LEELA BAI AND ANOTHER SEEMA CHOUHAN AND ANOTHER, the deceased was working as driver of a bus ferrying passengers from Indore to Burhanpur. The bus used to ferry passengers from Burhanpur at 6.30 am and reach Indore at 11 am. The return journey would commence from Indore at 3 pm and terminate at Burhanpur at 7.30 pm.

Because of the nature of the duty, the deceased would stay with the bus for twenty-four hours and would not come home for as long as a week.

On the fateful day, the deceased had returned to Burhanpur from Indore at 7.30 pm. He met with an accidental death while he was coming down the roof the bus after having his meal at about 8.30 pm.

The short question for consideration before the Supreme Court was whether the death occurred during the course of, and arising out of the employment.

The Court noted at the outset that the Act is a welfare legislation and has to be interpreted in the facts of each case and the evidence available and that the facts of this case falls squarely within the ratio of the judgment of the Supreme Court in General Manager, B.E.S.T. Undertaking, Bombay vs. Mrs. Agnes, (1964), wherein it was decided that The man’s work does not consist solely in the task which he is employed to perform. It includes also matters incidental to that task. Times during which meals are taken, moments during which the man is proceeding towards his work from one portion of his employers’ premises to another, and periods of rest may all be included.

The Supreme Court held that in the facts of the present case and the nature of evidence, there was a clear nexus between the accident and the employment to apply the doctrine 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.

Comments

Post a Comment

Most viewed this month

The recovery of vehicles by the financier not an offence - SC

Special Leave Petition (Crl.) No. 8907  of 2009 Anup Sarmah (Petitioner) Vs Bhola Nath Sharma & Ors.(Respondents) The petitioner submitted that  respondents-financer had forcibly taken away the vehicle financed by them and  illegally deprived the petitioner from its lawful possession  and  thus,  committed  a crime. The complaint filed by the petitioner had been  entertained  by  the Judicial Magistrate (Ist Class), Gauhati (Assam) in Complaint Case  No.  608 of 2009, even directing the interim custody of the vehicle (Maruti  Zen)  be given to the petitioner vide order dated  17.3.2009.  The respondent on approaching the Guwahati High  Court against this order, the hon'ble court squashed the criminal  proceedings  pending   before  the  learned Magistrate. After hearing both sides, the Hon'ble Supreme Court decided on 30th...
7 comments
Read more

When debt is bona fide disputed and the defence is a substantial one, the court will not wind up the company

In SHITAL FIBERS LTD.  vs  INDIAN ACRYLICS LIMITED, as per the respondent, appellant had made a payment of Rs.61,83,218/­. However, there was an outstanding balance of Rs.8,92,723/­ as on 28.7.2008. Since despite repeated requests, balance amount was not paid, the respondent issued a statutory notice to the appellant. The same was duly responded to. As the payment was not made despite notice being duly served on the appellant, the respondent filed the aforesaid Company Petition seeking winding up of the present appellant for its inability to pay admitted debts. The learned Company Judge vide order dated 28.9.2015 admitted the Company Petition. However, while doing so, the learned Company Judge observed, that since the appellant was an on­going concern, an opportunity should be granted to it to settle the accounts with the respondent by 31.12.2015. Only in case of failure of the settlement, the citation was directed to be published. On appeal, the Division Bench of the High Cou...
Post a Comment
Read more

Abusing in-laws a ground for divorce: SC

Abusing in-laws and not allowing them to reside in the matrimonial home by a woman amounts to cruelty to her spouse, ground enough for grant of divorce, the Supreme Court has ruled while allowing an NRI's plea for legal separation from his wife. A bench of Justices Vikaramajit Sen and A M Sapre said such incidents could not be termed as "wear and tear" of family life as held by Madras High Court which had said that a couple must be prepared to face such situations in matrimonial relationship. The NRI had filed a divorce petition alleging that his wife was abusive to his family members and did not allow his parents and siblings to stay in his house when they visited the US. Referring to an incident, the husband told the court that his wife had once locked him and his sister out of the house and abused them saying they belonged to a 'prostitute family'. She refused to allow her sister-in-law to enter the house and even lodged a police complaint against her hu...
4 comments
Read more