Supreme Court Expands “Course of Employment” in Compensation Case: Leela Bai vs. Seema Chouhan (2019)

Introduction

Date of the Judgment: January 22, 2019

Citation: 2019 INSC 59

Judges: Arun Mishra, J. and Navin Sinha, J.

Can an employee’s death, occurring on the employer’s premises but outside of their designated work hours, be considered as arising out of and in the course of employment? This was the question before the Supreme Court in a recent case concerning compensation under the Employee’s Compensation Act, 1923. The court examined whether the concept of ‘notional extension’ of employment could apply to a bus driver who died on the bus premises after his duty hours. The judgment was delivered by a two-judge bench comprising of Justice Arun Mishra and Justice Navin Sinha, with Justice Navin Sinha authoring the opinion.

Case Background

The appellants are the legal heirs of a deceased bus driver who worked for Respondent No. 1. The driver was required to travel daily between Indore and Burhanpur. On July 18, 2010, after completing his route and arriving at the Burhanpur bus stand at approximately 7:30 PM, the driver had his meal on the roof of the bus. While descending from the roof at about 8:30 PM, he accidentally fell and died. The appellants filed a claim for compensation under the Employee’s Compensation Act, 1923, which was rejected by the lower court.

Timeline

Legal Framework

The case revolves around the interpretation of the Employee’s Compensation Act, 1923, specifically concerning whether the accident occurred “in the course of” and “arising out of” the employment. The Act provides for compensation to employees or their dependents in case of injury or death caused by accidents arising out of and in the course of their employment. The relevant provisions of the Employee’s Compensation Act, 1923 are:

• Section 3(1) of the Employee’s Compensation Act, 1923 states that, *“If personal injury is caused to a workman by accident arising out of and in the course of his employment, his employer shall be liable to pay compensation in accordance with the provisions of this Chapter”*
• Section 4 of the Employee’s Compensation Act, 1923 deals with the *“Amount of compensation”*.
• Section 4A of the Employee’s Compensation Act, 1923 deals with *“Compensation to be paid when due and penalty for default”*.
• Section 26 of the Employee’s Compensation Act, 1923 deals with *“Costs”*.

Arguments

Appellants’ Arguments:

• The appellants argued that the deceased’s death was accidental and occurred in the course of and arising out of his employment. They emphasized that the deceased was required to be with the bus twenty-four hours a day due to the nature of his duty.
• They contended that the deceased’s presence on the bus was not by choice but by compulsion, as the employer’s requirements necessitated his constant availability with the bus.
• The appellants submitted that the accident occurred due to the nature of his duty, which required him to be present at the bus terminal even after his driving hours were over.
• The appellants relied on the principle of notional extension of employment, citing the case of General Manager, B.E.S.T. Undertaking, Bombay vs. Mrs. Agnes, (1964) 3 SCR 930, to argue that the deceased’s presence on the bus was an extension of his duty.

Respondents’ Arguments:

• The respondents argued that the deceased’s duty hours ended at 7:30 PM, and the accident occurred at 8:30 PM, after his duty hours.
• They contended that the death did not occur in the course of employment as the deceased was eating food on the roof of the bus by his own choice.
• The respondents argued that there was no direct connection between the death and the discharge of duties.

Issues Framed by the Supreme Court

The primary issue framed by the Supreme Court was:

1. Whether the death of the deceased occurred during the course of, and arising out of the employment?

Treatment of the Issue by the Court

Authorities

The Court considered the following authorities:

Judgment

How each submission made by the Parties was treated by the Court?

How each authority was viewed by the Court?

• The Court followed General Manager, B.E.S.T. Undertaking, Bombay vs. Mrs. Agnes, (1964) 3 SCR 930, stating that a worker’s employment includes incidental matters such as meal times and rest periods, and applied the doctrine of notional extension of employment.
• The Court also followed Manju Sarkar and Ors. vs. Mabish Miah and Ors., (2014) 14 SCC 21, to reiterate the principle of notional extension of employment.

What weighed in the mind of the Court?

The Supreme Court’s decision was heavily influenced by the following factors:

• The necessity of the deceased’s presence with the bus at all times to ensure the efficiency of the bus service. The court emphasized that the deceased’s presence at the bus terminal was not by choice but by the compulsion of his duty.
• The application of the doctrine of notional extension of employment, which extends the boundaries of employment to include activities incidental to the work, such as meal times and rest periods.
• The welfare nature of the Employee’s Compensation Act, 1923, which requires a liberal interpretation to provide benefits to employees.

Logical Reasoning:

The court reasoned that the deceased’s presence at the bus terminal was not by choice but by compulsion due to the nature of his duty. The court emphasized that the bus service would be affected if the driver was not available at the bus terminal, and therefore, his presence was integrally connected to the efficiency of the service. The court also highlighted that the Employee’s Compensation Act, 1923 is a welfare legislation and should be interpreted liberally to provide benefits to the employees.

The court rejected the argument that the deceased was off duty at the time of the accident, stating that the concept of notional extension of employment includes activities incidental to work, such as meal times. The court also rejected the argument that the deceased was eating on the roof of the bus by his own choice, emphasizing that his presence at the bus terminal was a requirement of his employment.

The court quoted from Agnes (supra), stating, “The man’s work does not consist solely in the task which he is employed to perform. It includes also matters incidental to that task. Times during which meals are taken, moments during which the man is proceeding towards his work from one portion of his employers’ premises to another, and periods of rest may all be included.”

The court also stated, “It is now well-settled, however, that 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 in leaving the actual place of work. There may be some reasonable extension in both time and place and a workman may be regarded as in the course of his employment even though he had not reached or had left his employer’s premises.”

The court further stated, “The facts and circumstances of each case will have to be examined very carefully in order to determine whether the accident arose out of and in the course of the employment of a workman, keeping in view at all time this theory of notional extension.”

Key Takeaways

• The Supreme Court has expanded the interpretation of “course of employment” under the Employee’s Compensation Act, 1923.
• The doctrine of “notional extension” of employment can include periods when an employee is on the employer’s premises but not directly performing work, such as meal times and rest periods, if the employee’s presence is required by the nature of their duty.
• Employers may be held liable for compensation even if an accident occurs outside of direct working hours, if the employee’s presence at the location is a requirement of their employment.
• This judgment emphasizes the welfare nature of the Employee’s Compensation Act, 1923, and the need for a liberal interpretation to benefit employees.

Directions

The Supreme Court directed the Workmen’s Compensation Commissioner, Labour Court, Khandwa, to calculate the compensation payable to the appellants based on the deceased’s salary of Rs. 4,275 per month. The compensation was to be calculated under Section 4 of the Act, along with a default penalty under Section 4A and costs under Section 26. The respondent was directed to pay the determined amount within three weeks from the date of computation by the Tribunal.

Specific Amendments Analysis

There is no specific amendment analysis in this judgment.

Development of Law

The ratio decidendi of this case is that the doctrine of notional extension of employment can be applied to include periods when an employee is on the employer’s premises but not directly performing work, such as meal times and rest periods, if the employee’s presence is required by the nature of their duty. This judgment expands the scope of the term “course of employment” under the Employee’s Compensation Act, 1923.

Conclusion

In conclusion, the Supreme Court allowed the appeal, holding that the deceased’s death occurred in the course of and arising out of his employment. The court applied the doctrine of notional extension of employment, emphasizing that the deceased’s presence at the bus terminal was a requirement of his duty, not a matter of choice. The court directed the lower authority to calculate and award compensation to the appellants.