EMPLOYEES STATE INSURANCE CORPORATION Vs. PURUSHOTHAMAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The E. S. I. Corporation has filed this appeal. The only question is whether the employee sustained injuries in the course of employment, who claim it be an employment injury and claim compensation. The applicant, on 3.9.1994 was travelling in the bus belonging to the employer after work hour and suffered an injury causing a temporary disablement from 4.9.1994 to 4.2.1995. Thereupon an application under S.75 of the Employees State Insurance Act was made by the employee to claim compensation for employment injury. The contention of the Corporation was that the injury sustained by the worker is not an employment injury, in that he did not satisfy the requirement of S.2(8) of the Act, i.e., suffering of the injury caused out of and in the course of employment and, therefore, they are not liable to pay compensation for the injury sustained. Overruling the objections, the Employees Insurance Court passed the impugned award, which is challenged in the appeal.

(2.) We have heard Smt. T. D. Rajalakshmi, the learned counsel appearing for the appellant and Sri. Johnson Manayani, the learned counsel appearing for the worker / respondent.

(3.) It is not disputed the fact that the worker was travelling in the transport provided by the employer and he suffered the injury while in transit from the place of employment to his residence. As such the learned counsel appearing for the Corporation relying on the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Regional Director, E. S. I. Corporation v. Francis De Costa ( AIR 1997 SC 432 ) and Travancore Titanium Products Ltd. v. Jerro ( 2000 (1) KLT 643 ) contended that the injury sustained was not out of and in the course of employment and as such it is not an employment injury to attract the provisions of the E. S. I. Act. But S.51C is an answer to this contention.