SATHYABHAMA Vs. E S I CORPORATION

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Appellant was employed in the Finishing Department of Madura Coats Limited, Koratti. On the morning of 7-1-1983 she had gone to the premises of the employer to sign lay off register as she along with others had been laid off. She signed the register, came out of the premises and she stepped into the public road with a view to cross the road to proceed homewards. Then a scooter came and struck her and she sustained injuries. After complying with the requisite formalities she preferred a claim before the E.S.I. Court, Alleppey claiming compensation. The claim was resisted by the employer and was rejected by the E.S.I. Court. The E.S.I, court rejected the claim on two grounds; one is that the person who goes to the employer's premises to sign lay off register cannot be said to have gone there in the course of employment and the injury cannot be said to be an employment injury. The second reason is that since she had received compensation from the owner of the scooter she is not eligible to receive compensation under the provisions of the E.S.I. Act. Hence this appeal.

(2.) Learned counsel representing the respondent did not seek to support the two reasons on which the impugned order rests. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent contended that the order is sustainable for another reason, namely, that the injury cannot be regarded as an employment injury since it was caused outside the premises of the employer. It is admitted that the injury was caused when the appellant had come out of the gate into the public road. The question is whether in these circumstances the injury can be said to be an employment injury. Employment injury is defined in S.2(8) of the E.S.I. Act as a personal injury to an employee caused by accident or an occupational disease arising out of and in the course of his employment, being an insurable employment.

(3.) The leading decision in relation to this controversy is that of the Supreme Court in Saurashtra Salt Manufacturing Co. v. Bai Valu Raja and others (AIR 1958 S.C. 881). That was a case in which an employee while proceeding to the place of employment in a public ferry boat was drowned. The Supreme Court held that injury was not sustained in the course of the employment. The rule has been laid down in Para.7 of the judgment as follows: