E S I CORPORATION Vs. SAINABA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) A conductor of the bus at the end of his day's work on 31-10-1993 fell down unconscious due to dizziness. When the driver was about to take the vehicle back to the depot after the passengers were alighted, he saw the conductor in an unconscious stage and he was immediately taken to the PVS Hospital Private Limited, Kozhikode. In the discharge summary issued from the PVS Hospital dated 2-11-1993, it is recorded as follows:

(2.) It is not disputed that the driver of the bus found the conductor in an unconscious stage at the end of his work on 31-10-1993 and he was taken to PVS Hospital. Before the bus was parked in the garage, he fell down unconscious in the bus itself and, therefore, the incident was during the course of employment. But, to become an employment injury so as to get dependents benefit, it must be proved that the accident is arising out of employment. In other words, at least, it must have casual connection with the employment or nexus with the employment. Section 46(1)(d) of the Employees' State Insurance Act, 1948 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') speaks about dependents benefit which is as follows:

(3.) We are unable to accept the reasoning of the E.I. Court. It is true that the Employees' State Insurance Act, 1948 is a social welfare legislation and since it is introducing welfare measures, it should be interpreted liberally in favour of the beneficiaries. But, at the same time, E.S.I. Corporation is not liable to pay compensation for dependents benefit if the death has no connection with the employment. If a person dies due to natural disease, it has no connection with the employment. Admittedly, he died not due to the occupational disease.