E S I CORPORATION Vs. LAKSHMI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Respondent's husband, Parameswara Menon (hereinafter referred to as the insured), was an employee of the Indian Rare Earths Limited, Eloor. His working hours were 9 a.m. to 4.30 p. m. His house was at Ernakulam. From there to the factory and thence back borne every day he travelled by bus. Formerly the company had its own transport service for the transport of its employees residing in places like Ernakulam, Alwaye and Trippunithura to the factory and back. When the company stopped its own transport service, it made arrangements with bus operators for such employees' travel to the factory from those places and return journey home. Still later the company stopping such arrangements began paying the employees a substantial portion of their fare at subsidy. The insured was getting 2/3 of the actual fare he had to pay for his journey from Ernakulam to the factory and the return journey. By the joint effort of the management and the employees' union permits were issued to the bus operators to operate the buses between the factory gate and the different places where the employees were residing with a time schedule that suited their (the employees') convenience to come to the factory in time and leave it after their work. One such bus leaves the factory gate at 4. 35 p.m. every day for Ernakulam and the employees from Ernakulam whose shift work ends at 4 30 p.m. return home in this bus. On 15-9-1970 when the insured was returning home from the factory by the 4.35 p.m. bus, he met with an accident and died of it the same day. Did he die of an 'employment injury' is the question for consideration.

(2.) Did the accident arise (i) out of the insured's employment; and (2) in the course of his employment, are the points to be considered. The first point, - whether the accident arose out of one's employment is determined by applying the test of causal relationship between the accident and the employment, taking into account the nature of the employment, its conditions, its obligations and its incidents. See Thorn or Simpson v. Sinclair, 0917) A C. 127 at 142, and M Mackenzie v. I M Isaak ( AIR 1970 SC 1906 at 1908). However, in cases coming under the Employees' State Insurance Act, 1948, on establishing the second point, namely, that the accident arose in the course of one's employment under S.5IA thereof a rebuttable presumption arises that the accident arose also out of that employment, wherefore a claimant for the benefits conferred by that Act need in the first instance establish only the second requirement. But, note, there is no converse presumption, that is, from proof of causal relationship between the accident and the employment it does not follow that the accident arose in the course of that employment. This is because in the words of Lord Dunedin in Charles R. Davidson and Company v. M Robb or Officer, (1918) A. C. 304 at 321,

(3.) The expression 'in the course of his employment' means 'in the course of the work which the workman is employed to do and which is incidental to it'. M. Mackenzie v. I. M. Issak (AIR 1970 SC 1906 at 1908) The first part of the above definition is determined with reference to the contract of employment. The difficulty arises when one begins to examine as to what is or are incidental to the work which the workman is employed to do. As ordinarily understood one begins doing his work only on reaching his work spot; and when he lays down his tools and leaves the work spot, that day's work is over 'This is subject to the theory of notional extension of the employer's premises so as to include an area which the workman passes and repasses in going to and leaving the actual place of work. These may be some reasonable extension in both time and place and workman may be regarded as in the course of his employment even though be had not reached or had left his employer's premises'. S. S. Manufacturing Co v. Bai Valu Raja ( AIR 1958 SC 881 at 882). What would be reasonable extension is a question of fact dependent upon the facts and circumstances in each case. This theory of notional extension in time of the work hours and in place of the work spot rests on the fiction that when the workman is on his way to that place or back from there, he is regarded as engaged in doing something incidental to the work he is employed to do. However, law is averse to stretch either work hours or work spot beyond a reasonable limit which means that neither of them extends up to the workman's home and that the limit has to be fixed somewhere between his home and the work spot. Where The Supreme Court in S. S. Manufacturing Co. v. Bai Valu Raja (AIR 1958 SC 881) laid down the following guidelines on this aspect.