1. Sri Gundu Satyanarayana. S/o lale-G Sattaiah aoed about 53 v. 1. The Regional Director

Appeal tJnoe' Serction 82 of ESr Act against orders setting aside the order dt.01.08 2017 passed rr E.r.c.No 4 of 2013 on the fire of Bef.re the Employees lnsurance Coud arr: (lhairman, lndustrial Tribunal at HyderabaO. Between: '1 The Regio r r I)irector, Emproyees state rnsurance corp,rra tion 5-9-23, Hi 2. The Dep.,t'/ [) rector, Enrproyees state lnsurance corporatiorr Branch office, Fort Road l-'r lerabad. Kompally, !}:: rnc erabad.' AND .,.APPELLANTS

2. Smt.G.An ur ar ra, W/o.G-.sgtyanarayana Aged about 53 years, Occ . 1 Qundu Saty: n rra,/ana, Q{o lqtq G.sattaiah Aged about 57 ye,ars, Occ . Private E nD.'ee R/o H.No.1-2912/6, Maruthi liagar,tar .laurli Colonf Kapra, R R't; ir ct. Housewif" tt 4 r H No. 1 -29 t2 16, Maruthi f.la ja r lii Jawan'Co toi,y, Kapra, R. R. Disrict 3 The Malagrnc Dinlctor, Ms M p I\LAuto private Ltd., (Autho.isr:,d SSp Hero . ifrJ t? # :i'I I ;,'?": :: I ifi 3 :fi E :,illAIIll,FTfl?" l',r:"3 H " " r^lJl*,s, Colony Thrr tr rlacrirr, Se ", r,,' 5 TheAsst.GeneralManager,Ms.M.PlvlAutoPrivateLtd,(Authorised.SsP ffeio Hoirali ptoi r.ro.z, Srinagar Colony Thirumalagiri, Secunderabad' ...RESPONDENTS lA NO: 1 OF 2018 Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to condone the delay of 244 daYs in filing the C.M A' Counsel for the Appellant: SRI B.G.RAVINDER REDDY Counsel for the Respondent Nos'1 & 2: M/s' VEDULA CHITRALEKHA il;;;i Couns-el fot the Regpondent Nos.4 & 5: -' i;; ih; C;;."dent t'1o.3: sRl CHANDRA SHEKHAR BoDDUPALLI Thg Court made the following: COMMON ORDER -;:*':rc=- ,,/ .l' HO,I''BL.E SRI JUSTICE NAGESH BHEEMAPI\H,A \VRIT PETITION No. 11562 OF. 2018 AND C.M.A.No. 642 OF 20la COMMON ORDER ),rtrlioners in Writ Petition claim to be r.l-re parents of Sri (iu Lr,1 |)r aveen Kumar (deceased). They filed Vrri, Petition seeking itry, emsn1.1i.n of the Judgment dated 01.08 2017 in E.I.C.Nc,. .+ f 2l)18 on the hle of the trmployees Stat(. LLsurance Court c rrt lrairman, Industrial Tribunal-I, H1,dc:-al ad (ESI Court), .r 1r,'': rs the Employees'State Insurance Cot'por,rtion (for short, tlt ()o-poration') hled C.M.A. questroning, he said judgment

3. :l i I i 'itr,ies are referred to as arrayed in Writ Pe ition. ''lre case of petitioners is that t |reir so-r while u.orking I s r-r:le .; Executive in Respondents 3 to 5 es1 :.b,ishment (for sholt, r c F)mployer'), on 09.O8.2O08, on the insrrtr:tions of his emplol:r, along with his co-employee namely S.;er. Javeed were on 1-1-rt'r .r,rL1. home, after completion of their shift, r,n motor cycle b(a'-rr 1 F egistration No. AP 29 AA 5917, rLrL,l all of a sudden d.r : t'; raising of flood water, the dect:aseC in undated and pillio I rl. erl Javeed could escape unhurt. peli iolr:rs are 2 stated to have made a complaint before Alwal Police uide Crime No. 331 of 2008 under Section I74 Cr.P.C. who after getting the Post-mortem examination conducted, handed over dead body to petitioners. According to petitioners, wife of {eceased remarried and left their house ieaving their child to take care of by them, thus, they are ail dependent on the earnings of the deceased. In this regard, petitioners submitted legal heir certificate issued by the Special Executive Magistrate dated 19.O9.2OO8 and House hold card issued by the revenue department clearly indicating that they are related to deceased. It is stated, the deceased at the time of death was working as Senior Executive under Respondents 3 to 5 and earning Rs. 10,500/- per month. The employer intimated the death of deceased uide letter dated 1 1.08.2008 to IFFCO TOKIO General Insurance Company Limited uide Policy No. 39465147 claiming insurance of two wheeler and advised petitioners also to claim the sarne and to approach the dcpartments concerned which establishes that deceased was employee of Respondents 3 to 5. Petitioners ,rrd..,. Regulation 8O as per Form-18 of Employees' State Insurarice Act, 1948 (for short, 'the ActJ Insurance No' 52- 51a6477 submitted Application for dependent benehts under I I i i: x .;; , ,:. _) ( I I 1l I I I I I I l l I I I I I : i I I I RPAD c r: : t L )1 .'2O 12 indicating the details and it r,. as received by reslro;'r: t nt:j, but there was no action. Th,:r t herefore, approach,:, I :-rc Commissioner for Workmen C()mpclrs€ition and filed W . t. . ' r 1 of 2008 while respondents in lc,::n.red that deceasecl er-ployee was covered by the Act, rettLrncd thl case to approach 1r: appropriatc forum uide order dzLtcd l'1 .)9.2012. Hence, pr--'rtLoners filed the mentioned E.l.C. bc:bre the ESI Court unr:l :r- Scction 75(1) of the Act secking comp.:nr;ation of Rs.10 lrrcs I nd dependant benehts vvith inter.est ar [8% per annum lro:rr thr date of incident with costs. Th,r Ol.lJ Court uide judgrn , r I irnpugned directed trSI Corporation t,) asr;ess and quantify t h: leJ,endant's benefits as envisaged pndlr St ction 52 of the .\L t r Lncl that petitioners' are entitled to clep :ndant,s benefits in li<ei proportions as per Rules in voque. pe titioners therefor,:. : ubmitted representation to resp(rnde 1ts on

26.09.2O17 tc rnplement the said judgment, trLrt ill c,ate , the Same \ri s r ,, r{ nsidered.

4. 'e alned counsel for petitroners - r eF,enclants Ms. Vcdula t)-ri ralekha submits that the incident oc:crrrred in the coursr: : I ,:nrployment and it is not the death due ro bodily ailmen t. I 4 On the other hand, learned Standing Counsel for

5. trSI Corporation Sri B.G. Ravinder Reddy based on the averments in the counter, strbmits that the ESI Court ought to have seen that deceased had left the establishment and was taking his friend to his house after the working hours which can neither be considered as during the course of employment nor out of employment as the deceased employees' course of employment terminated when he left the ofhce at 09O'30 P'M' and the fact of dropping at home of friend is not in connection with the work of the establishment as per Section 51-E' According to learned Standing Counsel, the Court below had not interpreted the said provision. He relied on the judgment in Regional Director, E,SI Corporation o. Francis De Costal and contends that incident occurred had no casual connection with the employment of deceased and since deceased did not succumb to death on account of any employment injury, petitioners are not entitled to pay compensation and dependent benefits. Learned counsel submitted that the Corporation approached this Court against the impugned order by Iiling the ' AIR 1997 sc 432 I I I I I I i ) present (1. \l r\.. hence, the said order was not implerneeted and the Wri , [)r lit,orr becomes infructuous.

6. rrcm a perusal of the material orL rer:ord ernd the judgme:rt i.:purlned in particular, the only issuc Lhirt br,ils down for con;i,:t<, rr.it,n is whether death of the emplol e,: :s in the coursc ol r - t ployment or not_

7. . \l rhis juncture, it is quite pertinent to qo through Section 5 1,. of the Act which reads as under: " .;1-E: : Accidents happening uhile commuting to the place oJ uot'k o:nd. vice aersa: An accident occurrilg to ilrr e nploJ.ee q,hile r:,rl I r t ni from his residence to the place of eml)lovrr(_-nt br dut-y or from th( r lacc of employment to his residence after perf,rr trir rg rluty, shall lx rle :- Led to have risen out of and in the course of ernplo., nrent if nexus l)e t\\ ( ( r t,re circumstances, time and place in u.hich t1 r: I cciclent occurrei ir i tlre employment is established.

8. |- is, no doubt, true that deceased uri s the emplove: l'-,[,]r Respondents 3 to 5 and on the lzrtetul c ay, he was on rlr.-Lt\ f,-o rr 02.00 to 10.00 p.m., as is evlclenr ti( m the evidence :r1 I \['.2 who was none other than trx. Nla riLging Director . I T? :spondents 3 to 5. The ESI Court alsr, :,b.;cn ecl in the jtLciq-lr:n1 that during the course of argumerts, .t \4,as submitted r : r be half of the Establishment that they n st ucted deceasec' Lo drr,p Syed Abeed A1i, who was r;ollearlr: and ( t ' ; I I I I _i l I I l 6 friend of deceased and eye witness to the incident, at his house which is very nearer to the Establishment and since total routes were closed and on account of traffic jam, police on duty instructed the motor cyclists to move in a particular route. Therefore, as per Section 51-E, the incident occurred while commuting to the house from work place. P.W.2 i.e. pillion also, in categorical terms, stated in his evidence that on the date of incident, himself and deceased were in the second shift from O2.OO to 1O.OO p.m. and since there was heavy rain in the city, they closed the show room at 08.O0 p.m. but they could not go out immediately; after the rain stopped, as his residence is very near to the show room, he asked the deceased to stay back in their house for the night; deceased was riding the vehicle; there was a traffic jam and police asked them to go in lane by one route and they reached near RTC Colony, Thirumalgheri at about 09.30 P.M; there was a drainage and all of a sudden flood water pushed and both of them washed away with motor cycle but somehow he could escape and reached the bank at about 1 1.30 P.M. It clearly establishes the nexus between the circumstances, time \ 7 and pla(x' i - r','hich the incident occurred and ttLe s1p lllryment is estab. ish r r I

9. I r r,iew of the above, it is clear that tlre ir-rcident ocr:urrc rl r " iLe commuting to reside nce after contp etion of u,ork. HerLr l tl-e provision under Section 51-E attr:,ctr; to this case. H rr*.r " ,'r, the ESI Court, in the abse ncr: of tna lcrial or evidencx: : - d u,-:ed by petitioners substantiating t:c < laim for Rs. 10 lirr s i orv lrds compensation in addition Lo cir:p:ndzrnt's benehls l.i ( | )nt3mplated and envisaged under Scct orr , i2 o1' the Act, all x,'r',1 tlLe EIC in part with costs direct rg tl're ESI Corporatiorr ,o rrssess and quantify the dependanl's [;e rr:fits as envisagr:r1 rr rdr'r Section 52 of the Act and pe,itio: rers are entitled 1r: : t pe rdants' benelit in hxed proportions ali F,er Rules in vogue . 10 anv mci-1l lr the light of the above, this Court do,:s not Iind - th e arguments of the learned Standr n g rlounsel, hence, rt I; o I lhe opinion that petitioners aro en I i tlc 1 to the benefits r"o'rided under Section 52 of the Acr . 'l'he Writ Pelition 1-l-rt ' :lbr e, deserves to be allowed. Consequcr- t,l1 , C.M.A. fai1s. \ t t ' i I T I It I 1 I I I ! 8

11. Writ Petition No. 11562 of 20i8 is allowed directing respondents to implement the order dated 01.08.2017 trr E.l.C.No. 4 of 2Ol3 on the file of the Employees' State Insurance Court-cum-Chairman, Industrial Tribunal-I, Hyderabad within two weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. C.M.A.No. 642 of 2Ol8 is dismissed. No costs.

12. Consequently, Miscellaneous Applications, if any t t To shali stand closed I/TRUE COPY// SD/-T DEPUTY . JAY REGI ASREE STRAR SECTION OFFICER lndustrial Tribunal-l' tate lnsurance CorPoration, 5-9-23' Hill ovees S ees State lnsurance Corporation' Branch Office dirrabad he Manag lng Director, M/s. tr/l.P.M. Auto Private Ltd-, (Authorised SSP Hero Adarshnag nderabad ot No.2, Srinagar DeputY D Hvd erabad

1. EmPloY ees State lnsurance Court-cum-Chair 2 The Reg ional Director, EmPl ar, Hy ploY 3. The 4.r eral Ma 5 The Gen Ti ColonY, t. Gene 6. The Ass Colqny, Srinagar Mis. v One CQ to SRIB One CC to SBIC ne GG to o 0.TwoCDCoprFl Fort Road, irector, Em Kom patly, Secunderabad No.2, Srinag er, M/ aglrl, ral Manage Tirumalag EDULA C G RAVIN HANDRA Secu nderabad r, M/s. M iri, Secu HITRAL DER RE SHEKHAR Honda), Plot 7 Plot No 2, P.M. Auto Private Ltd nderabad EKHA, Ad oov, sc r BODDU vocate IOPUC] oR ESlloPUCI PALLI, Ad vocate toPUCl ar ColonY' s. M,P.M Auto Private Thirumalag iri, Secu Ltd PI i I i i BI I PSK BS ,1./ HIGH COUR-I' DATED:28l0'511.025 CC TODAY ,a .11 514rT .z ) /l ,/\ P X t ,luu 2925 X ,:.. ,.' 1, 'a \illc r'^ * ; 41CF COMMON OREIER WP.No.1156ll of 2018 AND C.M.A.No.6412 OF 2018 t, \ ALLOWING I'HE WRIT PETITION AND DISMISSING THE CMA WITHOUT CI0STS /.,4 //"// I I I I I I I I I 1 'r I i ; i t t I t I r I I ! ! I , i I I