Absence Of Evidence Proving Nexus Between Employment And Death Bars Dependency Benefit Under ESI Act: Gujarat High Court
The question to be adjudicated was whether the heart attack being simplicitor cause of death can be considered as employment injury u/s 2(8) of the Act.
Justice J.C. Doshi, Gujarat High Court
The Gujarat High Court has held that in the absence of cogent evidence establishing a nexus between employment conditions and a worker’s cardiac death, such death cannot be treated as an “employment injury” under the Employees’ State Insurance Act, 1948, thereby disentitling claimants from dependency benefits.
The Court clarified that the mere fact that a heart attack occurred during working hours is insufficient to attract statutory benefits unless it is demonstrated that the employment contributed to, aggravated, or caused the condition. The burden lies on the claimant to establish this linkage through credible evidence, failing which the statutory presumption cannot be invoked.
Justice J.C. Doshi in a first appeal filed by the ESI Corporation, challenging the order of the ESI Court, Ahmedabad, while answering in favour, observed, “…in absence of evidence proving the nexus between the occupational disease arising out of and in the course of the employment and death. The ESI Act cannot grant any dependency benefit to an employee”.
Advocate Sachin D. Vasavada appeared for the appellant and Advocate Asha H. Gupta appeared for the respondents.
In the matter, the deceased, employed as a fitter mechanic, suffered chest pain during his shift and consequently died. Postmortem findings attributed the cause of death to cardio-respiratory arrest due to coronary heart disease.
However, the claimant contended that the physically strenuous nature of the work and resulting stress led to the fatal condition.
Thereafter, the ESI Court had allowed the claim for dependency benefits, holding that the death arose out of employment. Aggrieved by the order, the ESI Corporation preferred an appeal under Section 82 of the Act, contending that no evidence established any nexus between the employment and the heart disease.
The Court, upon examining the record, held that the statutory definition of “employment injury” under Section 2(8) of the Act requires proof that the injury arose both “out of” and “in the course of” employment.
While the death occurred during working hours, the Court found no material evidence demonstrating that employment conditions caused or contributed to the cardiac event. The testimony regarding workload and stress was deemed insufficient in the absence of medical or corroborative evidence establishing causation.
“The claimant did not lead any evidence to link the aforesaid nexus of death with the employment injury or to establish that the aforesaid injury was an injury arising out of the employment of the deceased or it is occupational disease arising out of and in the course of the employment…It is the employee who was to establish the exclusive link or nexus of injury and death whereby injury or occupational disease was arising out of and in the course of the employment”, the Bench noted.
Cause Title: Employees State Insurance Corporation v. Sudhaben Ramanbhai Patel & Ors. R/FIRST APPEAL NO. 656 of 2011
Appearances:
Appellant: Sachin D. Vasavada, Advocate.
Respondents: Asha H. Gupta, Advocate.