REGIONAL DIRECTOR ESIC TRICHUR Vs. PARAMESWARAN PILLAI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) ON 2411972 one Sri Unnikrishnan Nair, an insured employee, working as a trainee in M/s. Thoshiba Anand Lamps Ltd. , Kalamassery, succumbed to injuries sustained by him on 21-11972 as a result of a car accident on the National Highway near the factory gate when he was proceeding to the playground to play in a foot ball match for which he was officially deputed by the management. These facts, as disclosed by Ext. P-1 accident report dated 221-1972 and Ext. P-2 death intimation dated 241 1972 sent by the management, are not in dispute. The sole question that falls for decision in this appeal under S. 82 (2) of the Employees' State Insurance Act, 1948, filed at the instance of the Regional Director of the Employees' State Insurance corporation, Trichur (Opposite party before the Employees' Insurance Court, calicut) is whether the Employees' Insurance Court was correct in deciding that the said Unnikrishnan Nair's death was as a result of employment injury and that the respondent Sri A. Parameswaran Pillai, the father of the deceased (Applicant before the Employees' Insurance Court) was entitled to get dependant's benefit.

(2.) THE material portion of Ext. P-3 letter dated 14121972 sent by the appellant to the respondent reads as follows: "i regret to inform you that the case of your son has been rejected by our Headquarters Office and hence you are not entitled for dependents Benefit. THE decision communicated to you admitting the case as one of death due to Employment Injury stands cancelled. " THE appellant was constrained, according to the counsel, to review the legal position and revise its original stand in the matter since the death of the employee was found to be one which did not occur out of and in the course of his employment, as, in his opinion, the employee was allowed to take part in the foot-ball match only as a recreational facility. It was contended by the counsel that participation in the foot-ball match was purely optional without any compulsion; and it was not incidental to or in any way connected with the business or trade of the employer so as to attribute the death to employment injury. THE accident report dated 2211972 sent by the management soon after the occurrence, and long before the death of the employee, showed that it was at the instance of the management that the said unnikrishnan Nair proceeded towards the playground; and it was while going so that he got himself involved in the accident which resulted in injuries and ultimately in bis death. THE main contention of the appellant, as already noticed, is that participation in recreation was purely optional without any compulsion, and that injury resulting from such participation would not amount to employment injury as defined in Section 2 (8) of the Employees' State insurance Act which reads as follows: " (8) 'employment injury' means 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, whether the accident occurs or the occupational disease is contracted within or outside the territorial limits of India;" THE argument of the counsel for the appellant that there is not even casual connection between the employment and the accident, cannot be accepted inasmuch as recreation is part of the activities of the concern. In a welfare State the management is not only interested in boosting up production and maintaining economy, but also in creating proper atmosphere for improvement of the health, both mental and physical, of the employees which may in its turn add to the efficiency of the working of the business and trade of the employer.

(3.) THERE is no scope for interference with the decision of the Insurance Court particularly in view of the very limited jurisdiction under S. 82 (2) of the Employee's State Insurance Act which provides: "an appeal shall lie to the High Court from an order of an Employees' Insurance Court if it involves a substantial question of law. " Whether the employee sustained injury out of and in the course of his employment is purely a question of fact; and even if it is possible for this Court sitting in appeal to come to a different conclusion as long as the appellant is not able to establish that the order of the Employees' insurance Court involves a substantial question of law, this Court need not and shall not interfere with the decision arrived at by the Insurance Court. In this view the appeal is without merit and is dismissed. However, in the circumstances of the case, we make no order as to costs. . .