Delhi HC Sets Aside ESI Court Order | Murder Was Accident In Course Of Employment | Directs ESIC To Pay Compensation In 8 Weeks
Sanchayita Lahkar
The High Court of Delhi Single Bench of Justice Tejas Karia set aside a prior decision of the Employees State Insurance (ESI) Court, stating that the death of an insured employee, who was murdered by a co-worker at the employer's stockyard, was an accident arising out of and in the course of employment. The Court directed the Employees State Insurance Corporation (ESIC) to disburse Dependent’s Benefits under the ESI Act, 1948, holding that the murder qualified as an "accidental murder" linked to employment. The Court also stated the applicability of the doctrine of notional extension, finding a direct and causal connection between the employment and the fatal incident. The impugned order of the ESI Court was set aside, and ESIC was ordered to process and settle compensation claims within eight weeks.
The matter arose out of a dispute regarding entitlement to compensation under the Employee State Insurance Act, 1948, concerning the death of Mr. Sunil Kumar, an insured employee who was murdered by a co-worker. The appeal was filed under Section 82 of the ESI Act, challenging the order dated 09.04.2013 by the ESI Court in Suit No. 03/2011, which had denied compensation.
The deceased was employed by M/s Himgiri Cars (P) Ltd., the second respondent, as an Administrative Officer and was additionally entrusted with the duties of night in-charge of the employer’s stockyard. He had replaced the accused, Mr. Dharmender Singh, due to allegations of misconduct.
On 05.12.2008, after completing his shift as Administrative Officer, the deceased went to the stockyard where he was assigned night duty. He was murdered by the accused around 10:00 PM in the presence of one Mr. Shakti Singh, who informed the police. An FIR No. 352/08 was registered under Section 302 IPC at Alipur Police Station.
The Appellants, being the parents of the deceased, issued a legal notice dated 15.07.2009 to the second respondent seeking compensation of Rs. 20 lakhs, citing that the death occurred due to a grudge borne by the accused after being replaced and displaced from his accommodation. No response was received. Subsequently, the claim initiated under the Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923, was converted into a claim under Section 75 of the ESI Act.
The ESI Court had dismissed the claim on the ground that the mere fact of the deceased being an insured person residing at accommodation provided by the employer did not establish a causal connection with the employment.
The appellants contended before the High Court that the principle of notional extension applies, wherein the scope of employment extends beyond the strict boundaries of the workplace, provided a casual nexus exists. The appellants also relied on the testimony of the Human Resources Manager of the second respondent in a criminal trial, which confirmed the deceased had officially replaced the accused and was occupying the room in question due to his duties as night in-charge.
The respondents argued that the claim was barred by limitation and the incident had no connection with the employment. It was further submitted that the deceased’s work hours were limited to the day, and accommodation at the stockyard was a goodwill gesture unrelated to employment. Citing Regional Director, ESIC v. Francis De Costa, AIR 1997 SC 432, the respondents claimed that the murder was not covered under Section 2(8) of the ESI Act.
However, the High Court noted the absence of any contrary evidence to rebut the presumption under Section 51A of the ESI Act that accidents arising during employment are presumed to have arisen out of employment. The Court observed that the murder took place at the stockyard, the place of duty for the deceased at night, and that the accused was also an employee.
The Court held that in the absence of proof of personal enmity outside the scope of employment, the murder must be presumed to have occurred in connection with employment. The Court also found the doctrine of notional extension applicable, as the location and time of the incident were intrinsically tied to the deceased’s job as night in-charge.
"There is presumption under the ESI Act that if the accident arises during the course of employment, the same arises out of the employment, unless there is any contrary evidence on record."
"In absence of any such evidence, the present case would be covered by the presumption under Section 51A of the ESI Act."
"It is trite law that the Doctrine of Notional Extension will be applicable while deciding a case for compensation under welfare legislation like the ESI Act."
"The deceased was murdered at the gate of the stockyard of the Respondent No. 2 during the course of his employment as night in-charge of the stockyard."
"There just needs to be a casual relationship between the accident and the employment for being eligible to receive the compensation within the provisions of the ESI Act."
"The deceased could not and did not reasonably anticipate that the accused would commit his murder. As far as the deceased was concerned, the murder was an ‘accident.’"
"The reliance placed by the Respondent No.1 on Regional Director, ESIC v. Francis De Costa, AIR 1997 SC 432 is misplaced."
"There is no allegation or evidence on record to show that the deceased and the accused had any previous animosity for reasons extraneous to their employment."
"Given there is a direct connection between the employment and the accidental murder of the deceased during the course of his employment... the Appellants are entitled to compensation under the ESI Act."
The Court directed that the impugned order dated 09.04.2013 passed by the learned ESI Court be set aside. The Court stated that: "The Respondent No.1/ESIC is directed to settle the eligible Dependent’s Benefits in accordance with law."
"The amount payable shall be calculated under Section 52 of the ESI Act read with First Schedule thereto and the applicable ESI Rules."
"The amount so determined as Dependent’s Benefits shall be paid to the Appellants within a period of eight (8) weeks from the receipt of the copy of this order."
"The payment shall not be withheld on any ground whatsoever."
"This Appeal is, accordingly, allowed. The pending Application(s), if any, also stand disposed of. No orders as to costs."
Advocates Representing the Parties:
For the Appellants: Dr. M. Y. Khan, Advocate
For the Respondents: Mr. K P Mavi, Advocate
Case Title: Vijay Bahadur Singh & Anr v. Employees State Insurance Corporation & Ors
Neutral Citation: 2025: DHC:5044
Case Number: FAO 236/2013 and CM APPL. 45968/2019
Justice: Justice Tejas Karia
