Misc. Case No. 31 of 2014 · Orissa High Court
Case Details
Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR Reason: Authentication Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK Date: 05-May-2025 19:35:07 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK FAO No.157 of 2024 (From the judgment dated 13.02.2024 passed by the Learned District Judge-cum-ESI Court, Cuttack in ESI Misc. Case No.31 of 2014) Bichitra Nanda Mohapatra & Anr. …. Appellant(s) Regional Director, ESI Corporation, Bhubaneswar & Anr. …. -versus- Respondent (s) Advocates appeared in the case throughHybrid Mode: For Appellant (s) For Respondent (s) : : Mr.Ganeswar Behera, Adv. Mr. Amarendra Prasad Ray, Adv. CORAM: DR. JUSTICE S.K. PANIGRAHI DATE OF HEARING:-04.04.2025 DATE OF JUDGMENT:-25.04.2025 Dr. S.K. Panigrahi, J. 1. The Appellants, through the present appeal, challenge the judgment dated 13.02.2024 passed by the Learned District Judge-cum-ESI Court, Cuttack in ESI Misc. Case No.31 of 2014, whereby the said case was dismissed on contest against the Respondents/ Opposite Parties. I. FACTUAL MATRIX OF THE CASE: 2. The brief facts of the case are as follows: Page 1 of 19 Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR Reason: Authentication Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK Date: 05-May-2025 19:35:07 (i) Respondent No. 2, M/s Pasupati Feeds, the employer, operates a factory situated at Tangi-Kotasahi, Cuttack, and maintains its Head Office at 95C, New Industrial Estate, Phase-III, Jagatpur, within the district of Cuttack. The firm is engaged in the business of manufacturing poultry and cattle feed and marketing the same both within and outside the State of Odisha. (ii) In the course of its business operations, M/s Pasupati Feeds also oversees the sale and breeding of poultry at field farms managed by private owners. The firm supplies chicks, medicines, and poultry feed to these farm owners, who, in turn, rear the birds and sell themupon attaining a specified weightat a contractually agreed price to designated dealers, in accordance with the directions issued by M/s Pasupati Feeds.
Legal Reasoning
(iii) For the effective implementation of these activities, the firm has established several branch offices. Employees engaged in supervisory functions in this context are designated as Integration Supervisors or Field Supervisors. One such branch office was located at Chhanagiri, in the district of Khurda. (iv) The firm is registered under the Employees’ State Insurance Act, 1948, and its Employer Code Number is 4400004086000002. (v) The deceased, Shakti Prasad Mohapatra, son of Bichitra Nanda Mohapatra, aged about 26 years and a resident of TarataSasan, via Asureswar, P.S. Nemalo, District Cuttack, was designated as an Integration Supervisor/Field Supervisor by M/s Pasupati Feeds on 08.08.2010 and joined duties on the same day at the Tangi Office. He Page 2 of 19 Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR Reason: Authentication Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK Date: 05-May-2025 19:35:07 was covered under the Employees’ State Insurance Act, 1948and was issued an Identity Card by the ESI Corporation bearing Insurance No. 4400499228 on 02.09.2010. At the time of the accident, the deceased was posted at the Chhanagiri Branch in the district of Khurda. (vi) The primary responsibility of an Integration Supervisor/Field Supervisor is to oversee the sale and breeding of poultry at field
Legal Reasoning
farms. During the performance of their duties, they are required to carry a weighing machine and a Bird Sale Book from their office to the field farms, where they record the weight of the birds in the said register. Field Supervisors do not observe Sunday as a weekly holiday, as maximum lifting of stock from the field farms typically takes place early on Sunday mornings due to market demand. In lieu of Sunday, they are granted a weekly off on another day, depending on business exigencies. In order to facilitate Sunday sales, Field Supervisors often travel to the field farms on Saturday night or early Sunday morning to carry out weighment. Upon completion of the process, the birds are loaded onto trucks for delivery to designated destinations. Thereafter, the Field Supervisors return to their office and hand over the weighing machine and the Bird Sale Book to the Office-in-Charge. (vii) While the deceased was posted at the Chhanagiri Branch, the branch was headed by Sri Bijaya Kumar Mohapatra, son of Sekhar Chandra Mohapatra, a resident of At/Po. Uradha, Via Boiroi, P.S. Govindpur, District Cuttack, who was serving as the Integration In-Charge and Head of the Branch. Another employee, Sri Subash Chandra Swain, Page 3 of 19 Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR Reason: Authentication Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK Date: 05-May-2025 19:35:07 son of Fakir Chandra Swain, of Village Talapada, P.O. Odasingh, P.S. Salipur, District Cuttack, was also working as a Field Supervisor at the said branch. (viii) On the night of 11.06.2011 (Saturday), the deceased proceeded to the poultry farm of Sri BauribandhuPatra located at Lekhanpur, Sarangadharpur, District Nayagarh, and stayed there overnight. In the early hours of 12.06.2011 (Sunday), he supervised the weighing and lifting of birds as part of his official duties. Upon completion of the task, he returned and handed over the key, weighing machine, and Bird Sale Book to Sri Bijaya Kumar Mohapatra, the Branch In-Charge, in the presence of Sri Subash Chandra Swain, at approximately 6:30 AM on the same day. (ix) While returning to the Head Office at Jagatpur, in compliance with instructions from his employer, the deceased met with a fatal accident at around 7:45 AM on 12.06.2011. He was riding a motorcycle (TVS- 100 DLX) bearing Registration No. OR-05-P-9030 when he was hit from behind by a Bolero vehicle (bearing Registration No. OR-02-AZ- 6424) on National Highway 5, near the Pitapalli Bypass Overbridge, Khurda. As a result, he sustained grievous injuries and was immediately taken to the District Headquarters Hospital, Khurda. He was subsequently referred to Capital Hospital, Bhubaneswar, where he was declared dead by 10:00 AM the same day. (x) The accidental death of the deceased occurred during the course of his employment and arose out of the discharge of his official duties. The Employees’ State Insurance Corporation, upon being apprised of the Page 4 of 19 Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR Reason: Authentication Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK Date: 05-May-2025 19:35:07 incident, disbursed funeral expenses amounting to Rs. 10,000 to the parents of the deceased on 19.08.2011. The deceased was unmarried and is survived by his aged parents, the present applicants, who are now facing considerable financial hardship due to the untimely demise of their son. (xi) Following the accident, the employer promptly informed the local police, and the Branch Office staff submitted a formal intimation. Additionally, the elder brother of the deceased, upon receiving information about the incident, reached the hospital and lodged an FIR at Khurda Police Station under the relevant provisions of law. Subsequently, on 14.06.2011, the employer submitted a detailed accident report to the appropriate Branch Office of the ESI Corporation at Choudwar, District Cuttack. (xii) The Branch Manager, Mr. G.A. Khan, submitted the Employment Injury Report in respect of the deceased to the Regional Director, Employees’ State Insurance Corporation, following the accident. However, in the said report, the Branch Manager expressed reservations regarding the admissibility of the case as an employment injury, citing the following discrepancies and observations: a. There is a variance in the reported time of the accident: the Accident Report mentions 8:15 AM, whereas the First Information Report (FIR) records the time as 7:45 AM. b. According to the employer’s version, the accident occurred due to the motorcycle hitting a road divider while the insured person (IP) was riding. However, the FIR contradicts this Page 5 of 19 Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR Reason: Authentication Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK Date: 05-May-2025 19:35:07 version and states that a Bolero vehicle bearing Registration No. OR-02-AZ-6428 dashed into the motorcycle. c. The employer failed to submit a written declaration affirming that the insured person was on duty on the date of the accident, i.e., 12.06.2011, which was a Sunday. d. No documentary evidence has been furnished to show that any formal direction or order was issued by the employer instructing the deceased to work on Sunday. e. The Accident Report submitted by the employer was incomplete. Although the accident took place in Khurda, the report failed to specify the reason for the deceased’s visit to that location. Moreover, since the date of the accident was a Sunday (a weekly holiday), it was inferred that the accident could not be classified as one occurring during the course of employment or during authorized commuting. (xiii) Subsequently, the father of the deceased submitted an application before the Regional Director, ESIC, Bhubaneswar, seeking disbursement of the ‘Dependant’s Benefit’ under the applicable provisions of the Employees’ State Insurance Act, 1948. In response, the Deputy Director (Benefits) vide letter dated 09.07.2012, communicated that the claim was not admissible, as it was determined that the deceased was not on official duty at the time of the accident. (xiv) Aggrieved by the decision of the Regional Director, ESIC, Odisha, rejecting their claim for Dependant’s Benefit, the father of the Page 6 of 19 Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR Reason: Authentication Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK Date: 05-May-2025 19:35:07 deceased filed an application before the Insurance Commissioner, New Delhi, on 24.12.2012, seeking a review of the said decision. (xv) In response, the Deputy Director (Bft), Regional Office, Odisha, Sri S.C. Das, informed the applicant by letter dated 26.06.2013 that the Headquarters Office had communicated, vide letter dated 20.06.2013, its decision to uphold the earlier rejection by the Regional Director. However, a copy of the said communication dated 20.06.2013 was never furnished to the applicants. (xvi) Finding no efficacious alternative remedy, the appellants were constrained to file ESI Misc. Case No. 31 of 2014 before the Court of the Learned District Judge-cum-ESI Court, Cuttack, under Sections 75 and 77 of the Employees’ State Insurance Act, 1948, challenging the illegality and arbitrariness of the decisions dated 09.07.2012 and 18/20.06.2013 passed by the Regional Director and the Insurance Commissioner, respectively. The appellants sought a direction to Respondent No. 1 i.e., the ESI Corporation to grant them Dependant’s Benefit in accordance with the provisions of the Employees’ State Insurance Act, 1948, along with such other reliefs as may be deemed just and proper in the circumstances of the case. (xvii) Upon issuance of notice, the respondents appeared and filed their respective written statements, denying all allegations made by the appellants. (xviii) Respondent No. 1, in its written statement, contended that the accident did not arise out of or in the course of the deceased’s employment. Respondent No. 2, the employer, in its written statement, Page 7 of 19 Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR Reason: Authentication Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK Date: 05-May-2025 19:35:07 asserted that it had complied with all its obligations and denied any liability or negligence. (xix) The appellant examined three witnesses in support of his case. Applicant/Appellant No. 1 was examined as PW1. PW2 was the Field Supervisor at the Chhanagiri Branch, and PW3 was the deceased’s elder brother, who had lodged the FIR at Khurda Police Station. Despite multiple intimations to the concerned authorities, the Branch Manager of the ESIC, Choudwar, and the employer submitted an incomplete and formalistic Employment Injury Report, which appeared to shift the blame onto the management. The Branch Manager, Mr. G.A. Khan, failed to appreciate the seriousness of the matter and did not take any steps to involve the ESIC Branch Office at Khurda, which had territorial jurisdiction over the site of the accident. Exhibits marked Ext. 1 to Ext. 12 were filed and relied upon by the appellants during the proceedings. (xx) Opposite Party No. 1 examined the then Branch Manager of ESIC as OPW-1 and proved certain documents as Exhibits A to B/1. However, the authorities misapplied and misinterpreted Sections 52 and 2(8) of the Employees’ State Insurance Act, 1948. (xxi) Section 2(8) clearly defines "employment injury" as any personal injury to an employee caused by an accident or occupational disease arising out of and in the course of employment, whether occurring within or outside the territorial limits of India. Further, the Accident Report submitted by the employer on 14.06.2011 under Regulation 68 of the ESI (General) Regulations, 1950, to the Branch Office at Page 8 of 19 Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR Reason: Authentication Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK Date: 05-May-2025 19:35:07 Choudwar, unequivocally stated that the injury was sustained during the course of employment. The rejection of such a report was patently illegal and called for judicial intervention by the learned Court below. (xxii) Although Opposite Party No. 2 appeared before the learned Court, participated in the inquiry, and adduced evidence in support of the appellants’ case, such evidence was not formally recorded, which resulted in prejudice to the appellants. (xxiii)Following the rejection of the review petition, the appellants approached the Learned District Judge-cum-ESI Court, Cuttack, which registered the matter as ESI Misc. Case No. 31 of 2014. (xxiv) By judgment dated 13.02.2024, the Learned District Judge-cum-ESI Court, Cuttack, dismissed the appellants’ claim. (xxv) Aggrieved by the said judgment, the appellants have preferred the present appeal. II. SUBMISSIONS ON BEHALF OF THE APPELLANTS: 3. Learned counsel for the Appellants earnestly made the following submissions in support of his contentions (i) The judgment dated 13.02.2024, passed by the Learned District Judge- cum-ESI Court, Cuttack in ESI Misc. Case No. 31 of 2014, is ex facie illegal, contrary to the evidence on record, and against the weight of materials presented during trial. As such, the judgment is unsustainable in law and liable to be set aside. (ii) The learned court below failed to properly appreciate the submissions made by the appellants in their written statement as well as during oral arguments. Instead, it erroneously accepted the contentions of Page 9 of 19 Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR Reason: Authentication Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK Date: 05-May-2025 19:35:07 Respondent No. 1—the ESI Corporation—without due examination of the facts and law, rendering the impugned judgment legally untenable. (iii) The learned court below erred in holding that an application under Sections 75 and 77 of the Employees’ State Insurance Act, 1948, was not maintainable, misconstruing the scope of the provisions, which are explicitly applicable to disputes involving entitlement to benefits under the Actirrespective of whether the respondent is an organization or a statutory authority. (iv) The learned court below failed to adopt a beneficial interpretation of the Employees’ State Insurance Act, 1948while considering the Employment Injury Report submitted by the employer under Regulation 68 of the ESI (General) Regulations, 1950. The court gave undue emphasis to minor technical defects, such as a blank column or omission, and disregarded the fact that the accident in question occurred during the course of employment. (v) The finding of the learned court below placing the burden on the appellants to prove liability for alleged outstanding dues is manifestly erroneous, particularly when the respondents themselves were unable to specify the quantum of such dues. (vi) The learned court below also fell into error in holding that Respondent No. 1, having paid the funeral expenses of Rs. 10,000/- under Regulation 95-D, was not obligated to clarify its further liability. The fact that such an amount was sanctioned is itself a Page 10 of 19 Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR Reason: Authentication Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK Date: 05-May-2025 19:35:07 significant acknowledgment of the employment status of the deceased. (vii) The learned court failed to appreciate the correct scope and application of Sections 2(8) and 52 of the Employees’ State Insurance Act, 1948. The deceased was an insured person under the employment of M/s Pasupati Feeds and was performing his official duties at the time of the accident, albeit on a Sunday. Owing to the nature of his work, his weekly off was granted on a weekday instead. The fatal accident occurred while he was returning to the Head Office in accordance with instructions from his employer, thereby fulfilling the criteria of "arising out of and in the course of employment." (viii) The learned court misinterpreted the evidentiary value of the ESI identity card, erroneously treating it as an appointment order. The card is a general document for identification and attendance purposes and does not reflect the field postings or nature of duty. The omission of the place of posting in the identity card does not negate the factum of employment or entitlement to benefits. (ix) Undue importance was given to the absence of the deceased’s name in the attendance register for 12.06.2011 (Sunday), without appreciating that the deceased was working in a field-based role and had been deputed to the Chhanagiri (Khurda) unit as per established practice. The omission, if any, was purely technical. Moreover, the employer had confirmed the road accident on 12.06.2011 and the ESIC had disbursed funeral expenses under Regulation 95-D. Hence, the Page 11 of 19 Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR Reason: Authentication Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK Date: 05-May-2025 19:35:07 appellants’ entitlement to Dependant’s Benefit cannot be denied on this basis. (x) It is a well-established principle of law that in cases of ambiguity or technical lapses, the interpretation that advances the object and purpose of the beneficial legislation must prevail. The Employees’ State Insurance Act, 1948is a social welfare legislation enacted to protect employees. Any inadvertent omissions in documentation by the employer ought not to result in the denial of legitimate claims to the beneficiaries, especially in a contributory welfare scheme. The learned court below failed to apply this settled principle while adjudicating the present matter. III. SUBMISSIONS OF BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENTS: 4. Per contra, the learned counsel for the Respondents earnestly made the following submissions in support of his contentions: (i) Section 52 of the Employees’ State Insurance Act, 1948, provides that when an insured person dies as a result of an employment injury sustained during the course of his employment, Dependants’ Benefit shall be payable to his dependants.As per Section 2(8) of the Act, "employment injury" means a personal injury to an employee caused by an accident or occupational disease arising out of and in the course of his employment, whether the accident occurs or the disease is contracted within or outside the territorial limits of India.In addition, Section 51-A creates a statutory presumption that an accident occurring in the course of employment shall, in the absence of Page 12 of 19 Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR Reason: Authentication Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK Date: 05-May-2025 19:35:07 evidence to the contrary, be deemed to have arisen out of that employment. (ii) Late Shakti Prakash Mohapatra (Insurance No. 4400499228), employed with M/s Pasupati Feeds (Employer Code No. 44000040860000002), tragically passed away in a road accident on 12.06.2011 near Pitapalli, Khurda, while riding his motorcycle. The employer submitted an Accident Report under Regulation 68 of the Employees’ State Insurance (General) Regulations, 1950 on 14.06.2011, but the report did not specify whether the accident occurred during the course of employment or while commuting. (iii) Following the submission, the Branch Manager of the ESI Corporation, Choudwar, conducted an inquiry and filed a report on 14.09.2011. The investigation concluded that the accident occurred on a Sunday, a non-working day for the deceased, and no duty had been formally assigned to him on that date. As a result, it was determined that the accident did not arise out of or in the course of employment. (iv) Based on these findings, the ESI Corporation concluded that the incident did not qualify as an “employment injury” under Section 2(8) of the Act, and consequently, the dependants were not eligible for Dependants’ Benefit. (v) The petitioners’ reliance on Sections 51-A, 51-B, and 52 of the Employees’ State Insurance Act, 1948has been misplaced, as the accident in question did not take place during the course of employment, rendering the statutory presumptions inapplicable. Page 13 of 19 Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR Reason: Authentication Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK Date: 05-May-2025 19:35:07 (vi) The nature of the deceased’s work schedule did not conform to the conventional Sunday-off pattern. Employees such as the deceased operated under a rotational weekly off policy devised by the employer to ensure uninterrupted operations, often requiring them to work on Sundays. (vii) On 12.06.2011, the deceased was engaged in work consistent with the duties assigned to him, and the employer was informed of the accident in a timely manner. An FIR was also lodged by the deceased’s brother, and the employer complied with all reporting obligations. (viii) As a humanitarian gesture, the employer disbursed an ex gratia amount of Rs. 1,50,000/- to the claimants by cheque dated 17.06.2011. (ix) Despite the submission of the Accident Report, no further correspondence or clarification was sought either by the claimants or the ESI Corporation until receipt of legal notice in the present proceedings. Only upon such notice did the employer become aware of the repudiation of the claim, which appears to be on vague and unsustainable grounds. (x) Minor discrepancies relating to the time or narrative of the accident should not overshadow the fact of accidental death, which remains undisputed. Neither the FIR nor the accident report was authored by eyewitnesses, and any inconsistencies are inconsequential to the central issue. (xi) The dependants are required to establish their status under the Employees’ State Insurance Act, 1948following which the liability for Page 14 of 19 Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR Reason: Authentication Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK Date: 05-May-2025 19:35:07 payment of benefits lies with the ESI Corporation, not the employer. The employer’s establishment is covered under the Act, and it has discharged all statutory obligations in good faith. No act of negligence or non-compliance can be attributed to it. IV. FINDINGS OF THE DISTRICT JUDGE-CUM-ESI COURT, CUTTACK: 5. TheDistrict Judge-cum-ESI Court, Cuttack, after reviewing the pleadings, evidence, and hearing arguments from both parties, made the following findings: (i) Although it was established that the deceased was an employee of M/s. Pasupati Feeds and had unfortunately died in a road accident on 12th June 2011, the Tribunal found a lack of sufficient documentary evidence to support the petitioners’ claim that Sundays were not considered holidays for field staff or that the deceased was, in fact, performing official duties for Opposite Party No. 2 on the date of the incident. (ii) The oral testimonies of the petitioners’ witnessesP.W.1 (the father of the deceased), P.W.2 (a colleague), and P.W.3 (the deceased’s elder brother)were found to be inconsistent on material facts. P.W.3 specifically stated that the deceased was employed at the Tangi- Kotasahi unit of M/s. Pasupati Feeds and used to sign the attendance register at that location. However, he failed to produce any documentary evidence establishing the deceased’s deputation or posting at Chhanagiri, Khurda. Conversely, P.W.2 claimed that both he and the deceased were working under Opposite Party No. 2 at the Chhanagiri unit and that the deceased had been assigned official Page 15 of 19 Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR Reason: Authentication Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK Date: 05-May-2025 19:35:07 duties on the date of the accident by the Branch In-Charge. This assertion, too, was not supported by any documentary record. Furthermore, the testimony of P.W.1 and P.W.3 did not corroborate the statements made by P.W.2 regarding the place of posting or duty assignment. (iii) The Tribunal accepted that the applicants were, in fact, the legal dependants of the deceased within the meaning of the Employees’ State Insurance Act, 1948. However, it also observed that the applicants failed to establish the requisite legal cause of action or standing under the Act to sustain their claim for compensation. (iv) Based on the above findings, the Tribunal concluded that the applicants were not entitled to any benefits under the Employees’ State Insurance Act, 1948 or the Scheme framed thereunder. Accordingly, the refusal by Opposite Party No. 1 to grant Dependants’ Benefit was neither illegal nor unjustified. V. COURT’S REASONING AND ANALYSIS: 6. Heard the Learned Counsels for the parties and perused the documents placed before this Court. 7. At the outset, it is necessary to delineate the scope of appellate jurisdiction under Section 82(2) of the Employees’ State Insurance Act, 1948. The provision permits an appeal to this Court only on a substantial question of law. As a corollary, this Court does not function as a second court of fact and cannot reassess evidence or substitute its own conclusions for those reached by the District Judge- Page 16 of 19 Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR Reason: Authentication Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK Date: 05-May-2025 19:35:07 cum-ESI Court, Cuttackunless the findings are shown to be perverse, illegal, or unsupported by the record. 8. The appellants have preferred the present appeal under Section 82(2), assailing the judgment dated 13.02.2024 passed by the Learned District Judge-cum-ESI Court, Cuttack, in ESI Misc. Case No. 31 of 2014, whereby their claim for Dependant’s Benefit under Section 52 of the Employees’ State Insurance Act, 1948 was rejected. 9. It is not in dispute that the deceased, Shakti Prasad Mohapatra, was an insured person under the Act and was employed by M/s Pasupati Feeds. His death occurred as a result of a motor vehicle accident on 12.06.2011. 10. Section 2(8) of the Employees’ State Insurance Act, 1948 defines “employment injury” as a personal injury caused by an accident “arising out of and in the course of employment.” 11. Section 51A of the Employees’ State Insurance Act, 1948 introduces a statutory presumption that an accident occurring in the course of employment shall be presumed to arise out of it unless the contrary is shown. 12. In the present case, the District Judge-cum-ESI Court, Cuttackevaluated both oral and documentary evidence and concluded that the presumption under Section 51A stood rebutted. It recorded that the accident occurred on 12.06.2011, a Sunday, and there was no written assignment or direction from the employer indicating that the deceased had been officially deputed for duty on that day. The muster roll, though not formally exhibited, was undisputed and reflected that Page 17 of 19 Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR Reason: Authentication Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK Date: 05-May-2025 19:35:07 Sundays were regular weekly off days for employees, including the deceased. Additionally, the Accident Report submitted by the employer was incomplete, with critical fields such as duty location, shift timings, and confirmation of duty status on the date of the accident left blank. The oral testimonies of the appellants’ witnesses were also found to be inconsistent and lacking corroborative documentary evidence, particularly in relation to the claim that the deceased was posted at the Chhanagiri Branch at the time of the accident. 13. The Court found that no document was placed on record to support the claim that the deceased was deputed to Chhanagiri or was under instructions to return to the Head Office at the time of the accident. The inconsistencies in the testimonies of PW2 and PW3 were specifically noted, and no corroborative material such as field orders, duty rosters, or any communication from the employer was brought on record. 14. The appellants argued that funeral expenses were sanctioned under Regulation 95D and that this indicated an acknowledgment by the Corporation. However, the District Judge-cum-ESI Court, Cuttack rightly observed that such payment, being statutory and ex gratia in nature, does not by itself establish that the accident was employment related. 15. The District Judge-cum-ESI Court, Cuttack also noted that the appellants had received compensation from the MACT and a separate ex gratia payment from the employer. While these do not bar a claim Page 18 of 19 Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR Reason: Authentication Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK Date: 05-May-2025 19:35:07 under the Employees’ State Insurance Act, 1948, they reinforce that some measure of relief was extended. 16. In the appellate framework under Section 82(2), this Court is tasked only with identifying whether there is a substantial question of law arising from the judgment under challenge. The test is not whether another view is possible, but whether the view adopted is perverse or manifestly erroneous. 17. Upon a thorough perusal of the record, this Court finds no trace of perversity or legal infirmity in the impugned judgment. The findings recorded are based on a reasoned appreciation of evidence, and no material irregularity warranting interference has been demonstrated. VI. CONCLUSION: 18. In view of the foregoing, no substantial question of law arises for consideration under Section 82(2) of the Employees’ State Insurance Act, 1948. The findings of the learned District Judge-cum-ESI Court, Cuttack, are neither perverse nor contrary to the settled principles of law. 19. Accordingly, the present Appeal stands dismissed. 20. Interim order, if any, passed earlier stands vacated. Orissa High Court, Cuttack, Dated the 25th April, 2025/ (Dr.S.K. Panigrahi) Judge Page 19 of 19