Direct Connection Between Employment & Accidental Murder During Course Of Employment: Delhi High Court Allows Appeal Of Deceased Employee’s Kin Seeking Compensation
The appeal before the Delhi High Court was filed under Section 82 of the Employee State Insurance Act, 1948 (ESI Act) against the final order in a suit filed by the parents of the deceased employee.
Justice Tejas Karia, Delhi High Court
The Delhi High Court has come to the aid of the parents of a deceased employee of a company who was murdered by an ex-employee during his employment as the night in-charge of the stockyard. The High Court found that a causal connection between the accident and the employment had been established.
The appeal before the High Court was filed under Section 82 of the Employee State Insurance Act, 1948 (ESI Act) against the final order (impugned order) passed by the Employee State Insurance Court (ESI Court) in a Suit filed by the Appellants/Vijay Bahadur Singh and Raj Kumari, who are the parents of the deceased Sunil Kumar.
The Single Bench of Justice Tejas Karia said, “The deceased was murdered during the course of employment at the place he was working as night in-charge and the same was directly having connection and was arising out of and in connection with his employment with Respondent No. 2.”
“Given there is a direct connection between the employment and the accidental murder of the deceased during the course of his employment as the night in-charge of the stockyard of Respondent No.2, the Appellants are entitled to compensation under the ESI Act”, it further added.
Advocate Dr. M. Y. Khan represented the Appellants while Advocate K P Mavi represented the Respondents.
Factual Background
The deceased was employed as an administrative officer by the Management of Respondent 2/ M/s. Himgiri Cars (P) Ltd. was insured under the ESI Act. The deceased was also employed as a night in charge of the stockyard of the Respondent Company in place of the accused. The accused was replaced by the deceased on the allegations of misconduct. The deceased was brutally murdered by the accused in the night in the presence of one Shakti Singh, who then informed the police of the act of the accused. An FIR was lodged against the accused under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, and the accused was subsequently arrested.
The father of the deceased issued a Legal Notice seeking compensation of ₹20 Lakh on the ground that the deceased was working for Respondent 2 at the time of his death, which was as a result of removal of the accused from his position as the night in-charge of the stockyard and allotting the room allotted to the accused to the deceased. A complaint was also filed under Section 10 of the Workman’s Compensation Act, 1923, which subsequently got converted into the claim under Section 75 of the ESI Act. The ESI Court passed the impugned order dismissing the claim of the appellants. It was in such circumstances that the appellants approached the High Court.
Reasoning
The Bench, at the outset, observed, “Accordingly, there is presumption under the ESI Act that if the accident arises during the course of employment, the same arises out of the employment, unless there is any contrary evidence on record.”
The Court was of the view that the present case would be covered by the presumption under Section 51A of the ESI Act, as there was no evidence on record to show that the murder of the deceased did not arise out of or in connection with the course of employment. “It is trite law that the Doctrine of Notional Extension will be applicable while deciding a case for compensation under welfare legislation like the ESI Act. The deceased was murdered at the gate of the stockyard of the Respondent No. 2 during the course of his employment as night in-charge of the stockyard of the Respondent No. 2 at the time of his death”, it said.
The Bench was of the view that the present case was an “accidental murder” during the employment of the Respondent Company. Considering the presumption under the law, the burden was on the Respondents to prove that the murder was outside the employment of the Respondent 2, which they failed to discharge under the ESI Act. There was no allegation or evidence on record to show that the deceased and the accused had any previous animosity for reasons extraneous to their employment with the Respondent Company.
The Bench further explained, “Section 46(d) read with Section 52 of the ESI Act read with Rule 58 of the Employees‟ State Insurance (Central) Rules, 1950 (‘ESI Rules’’) entitles the dependents of the deceased insured employee who dies to an injury sustained in the course of his employment for periodical payments, along with funeral expenses as envisaged under Section 46(f) of the ESI Act read with Rule 59 of the ESI Rules.”
Thus, allowing the appeal, the Bench directed ESIC to settle the eligible Dependent’s Benefits in accordance with law. “The amount payable shall be calculated under Section 52 of the ESI Act read with First Schedule thereto and the applicable ESI Rules. The amount so determined as Dependent’s Benefits shall be paid to the Appellants within a period of eight (8) weeks from the receipt of the copy of this order. The payment shall not be withheld on any ground whatsoever”, it ordered.
Cause Title: Vijay Bahadur Singh & Anr v. Employees State Insurance Corporation & Ors (Neutral Citation: 2025:DHC:5044)
Appearance
Appellants: Advocate Dr. M. Y. Khan
Respondents: Advocate K P Mavi
