EMPLOYEES' STATE INSURANCE ACT, 1948

Facts: The respondent's son was an employee of M/s. Mysore Breweries Ltd., Yeshanthpur, Bangalore. He was working as a Refrigerator Operator in the said factory and while on his way to the factory to join duty in the third shift, he was run over by an unidentified motor vehicle causing his death at the spot. The question arose whether the Appellant were liable to pay compensation to family as the family claimed he died due to an employment injury while the Employee Insurance Court stated that cause of death was road accident.

Held: That the accident may occur within or outside the territorial limits of India. However, there should be a nexus or casual connection between the accident and employment. The place or time of accident should not be totally unrelated to the employment. The accident occurring to employee while travelling as a passenger in any transport provided by employer, which is not public transport service, should be deemed to raise out of and in course of his employment.

Facts: There was a canteen and cycle stand run by private contractors in a theatre premises. On the question of whether the theatre owner will be liable as principal employer for the payment of E.S.I. contributions The Court deliberated on the definition of 'employee' under Section 2(9) of the Employees' State Insurance Act, 1948.

Held: That the person must be employed "in or in connection with' the work of an establishment. The expression "in connection with the work of an establishment" has a very wide ambit which deliberately transcends contractual relationships. Some nexus must exist between the establishment and the work of the employee but it may be a loose connection. Thereby, the two operations namely keeping a cycle stand and running a canteen are incidental or adjuncts to the primary purpose of the theatre and the workers engaged therein are covered by the definition of employee as given in E.S.I. Act.

Facts: A workman got injured in the course of his employment. When he returned for work he was found unfit to do the same work, but his request for assignment of lighter work was not granted. E.S.I. Corporation accepted his case as "employment injury" and referred him to the Medical Board for assessing his disability. The Medical Board examined him and assessed his loss of earning capacity as 20%. The question involved in this appeal was whether the employment injury sustained by a workman had resulted in permanent total disablement?

Held: That the difference between "permanent partial disablement" and " permanent total disablement" was subtle but discernible. in "partial disablement the consequence of injury only reduces the earning capacity in the employment, whereas in total disability, the injury should have rendered the body incapacitated to do the work which a person was earlier capable of doing. Such incapacity is only in reference to all work which he was capable of performing atthe time of accident, which means that it does not matter while deciding incapacity if the person can still acquire new skill to do some other work.