PARTAP Vs. PANIPAT COOPERATIVE SUGAR MILLS LTD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The following substantial question of law arises in the present case:

(2.) The learned Commissioner has relied upon Regional Director, E.S.L Corporation and Anr. v. Francis De Costa and Anr., 1997 AIR(SC) 432 and held that the Appellant did not receive injury during the course of employment.

(3.) I have heard counsel for the Appellant and gone through the abovesaid judgment. A perusal of the judgment indicates that the Apex Court in the said case while interpreting "employment injury" as defined in Section 2(d) of the Employees' State Insurance Act vis-a-vis disablement benefit under Section 51 of the said Act have held that injury suffered by an employee in the said case one kilometer way from the factory caused by an accident would not be an employment injury under Section 2(8) of the Employees' State Insurance Act. Section 2(8) defining 'employment injury' reads as follows: