Assault By Employer Cannot Be Termed “Accident” For Seeking Compensation U/S 3 Employees’ Compensation Act: Karnataka High Court
The High Court held that compensation under the Employees’ Compensation Act is payable only where injury is caused by an accident arising out of and in the course of employment, and that an intentional assault does not fall within that statutory meaning.
The Karnataka High Court has held that an assault by an employer cannot be classified as an “accident” within the meaning of Section 3 of the Employees’ Compensation Act and therefore cannot give rise to a compensation claim under the statute.
The Court was hearing an appeal filed under Section 30(1) of the Employees’ Compensation Act challenging the dismissal of a compensation claim by the Commissioner.
A Bench of Justice Tara Vitasta Ganju, while taking note that the employee, who had absented himself from work for two days and was assaulted by the employer with a firewood upon his return, remarked that ““this Court is unable to find any infirmity with the detailed, reasoned Impugned Judgment passed by the Learned Trial Court which has held that an assault cannot be termed as ‘accident’ within the meaning of Section 3 of the E.C. Act.”
Background
The claimants were legal representatives of a deceased worker who had been employed as a daily wager in a stone quarry. According to the claim petition, after remaining absent from work for two days due to illness, the worker returned to duty, whereupon the employer allegedly abused and assaulted him with a piece of firewood, causing injuries that resulted in permanent disability.
A criminal complaint was registered regarding the alleged assault. During the pendency of proceedings before the Commissioner, the worker was subsequently murdered, and separate criminal proceedings were initiated against the employer and others.
The claim petition sought compensation on the basis of injuries allegedly sustained in the earlier incident, which were stated to have impaired his earning capacity.
The trial court dismissed the petition, holding that the injury did not arise out of an “accident” within the meaning of Section 3 of the Act and therefore compensation was not payable.
Court’s Observation
The Karnataka High Court first considered the statutory requirement under Section 3(1) of the Act, which imposes liability on an employer only where personal injury is caused to an employee by an accident arising out of and in the course of employment.
The Court held that injuries resulting from intentional acts or deliberate conduct cannot be brought within the ambit of the expression “accident” used in the provision. It approved the trial court’s reasoning that an alleged assault, being intentional in nature, falls outside the statutory requirement.
It then examined whether the incident could nevertheless be treated as employment-related. Referring to Supreme Court precedent, the Court reiterated that an employee must establish a causal connection between the injury and the employment, and that both conditions, arising out of employment and occurring in the course of employment, must be satisfied before compensation can be granted.
The Bench also referred to the doctrine of notional extension recognised by the Supreme Court, under which employment may extend beyond strict workplace boundaries in appropriate circumstances. However, it clarified that such an extension applies only where the injury still bears a nexus to employment duties or conditions, which was absent in the present case.
On the facts, the Court noted that the claim petition itself alleged that the employer assaulted the worker. This admission undermined the appellants’ argument that the incident should be treated as an accidental workplace injury.
The Court also considered the argument that the worker’s later death should be factored into the claim. It agreed with the trial court that the subsequent incident stood on an entirely different footing and had no nexus with the earlier alleged assault. The latter incident, the Court concluded, occurred outside the area of employment and was the subject of independent criminal proceedings.
Conclusion
The High Court held that the claimants failed to establish that the injury arose out of and in the course of employment or that it resulted from an accident within the statutory meaning.
Finding no error in the trial court’s reasoning, it dismissed the appeal while clarifying that the claimants remained free to pursue remedies in pending criminal proceedings.
Cause Title: Swamy (Dead) v. Kumara (Neutral Citation: 2026:KHC:6427)
Appearances
Appellants: Advocate B. Pramod
Respondent: Advocate Jnanesh Kumar K.