The Bombay High Court reaffirms the application of the doctrine of notional extension to accidents occurring outside the employer’s premises, holding that employers bear the burden to disprove a causal connection between such an accident and employment, thereby upholding established precedent as binding authority in Employees Compensation Act matters.
Summary
| Category | Data |
|---|---|
| Case Name | FA/1262/2018 of ECA INFRASTRUCTURE (INDIA) PVT. LTD., THROUGH ITS AUTHORISED SIGNATORY, SHRI AJAY M. MAHADURE Vs TEJRAO S/O KESHAO MORE AND OTHERS |
| CNR | HCBM040069232018 |
| Date of Registration | 01-12-2018 |
| Decision Date | 17-10-2025 |
| Disposal Nature | PARTLY ALLOWED |
| Judgment Author | HON’BLE SHRI JUSTICE PRAVIN S. PATIL |
| Court | Bombay High Court |
| Bench | Nagpur Bench |
| Precedent Value | Binding authority for subordinate courts under Bombay High Court’s jurisdiction; persuasive elsewhere |
| Overrules / Affirms | Affirms existing legal principles and applies Supreme Court precedents |
| Type of Law | Employees Compensation / Labour Welfare Law |
| Questions of Law |
|
| Ratio Decidendi |
The court held that, under the theory of notional extension as recognized in Indian jurisprudence, accidents occurring outside the employer’s premises may fall within ‘course of employment’ if a causal connection is established. The burden to prove that there is no causal connection between the employment and the accident rests on the employer, especially if the employee was acting reasonably (e.g., taking a permitted tea break due to lack of canteen facilities). The compensation proceedings should rely on the preponderance of probabilities, and even documents such as police reports may be considered. The penalty under Section 4-A of the Employees Compensation Act cannot be imposed without notice or reasonable opportunity to the employer. |
| Judgments Relied Upon |
|
| Logic / Jurisprudence / Authorities Relied Upon by the Court |
|
| Facts as Summarised by the Court | The deceased, a computer operator at a toll plaza operating on a shift basis, left the premises with permission to take a tea break due to the absence of a canteen facility. While returning from a nearby village, he met with a fatal accident. The Commissioner awarded compensation to legal heirs. The employer challenged the finding of causal connection and the imposition of penalty without notice. |
Practical Impact
| Category | Impact |
|---|---|
| Binding On | All subordinate courts under the Bombay High Court’s jurisdiction |
| Persuasive For | Other High Courts, Supreme Court, tribunals dealing with Employees Compensation Act cases |
| Follows |
|
| Distinguishes | Not expressly distinguished but clarifies application of notional extension and burden of proof principles |
What’s New / What Lawyers Should Note
- The judgment clarifies that the doctrine of notional extension applies even where the employee leaves the premises for reasonable necessities, such as taking a break, if done with permission.
- Affirms that the employer bears the burden to disprove a causal connection once the employee establishes reasonable conduct related to employment.
- Police documents, including FIRs and post-mortem reports, can be considered as evidence in Employees Compensation proceedings decided on the preponderance of probabilities, not strict rules of evidence.
- Penalty under Section 4-A of the Employees Compensation Act cannot be imposed without providing notice or opportunity to the employer; mere participation in proceedings is insufficient to waive this requirement.
Summary of Legal Reasoning
- The court identified the central legal issue as the applicability of the doctrine of notional extension and the burden of proof regarding causal connection between employment and accident when the accident occurs outside the employer’s premises.
- It relied upon established Supreme Court and High Court precedents (Bhagubai, Daivshala, Daya Kishan Joshi, Saurashtra Salt Mfg. Co.) regarding ‘arising out of and in the course of employment’ and the doctrine of notional extension.
- The court considered factual evidence showing that the deceased left with permission for a tea break due to the absence of a canteen, bringing the act within the notional extension of employment.
- It confirmed that in compensation proceedings, documents such as police case papers can be relied on for establishing facts due to the civil, summary, and welfare nature of the proceedings (relying on Bharti Axa and National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Rattani).
- The court found no fault with the Commissioner’s attribution of causal connection but held that imposing penalty under Section 4-A without providing due notice was procedurally incorrect, applying Udhav R. Pawar and Supreme Court precedent.
Arguments by the Parties
Petitioner (Appellant/Employer):
- The deceased left the premises without permission; hence, there was no causal/proximate connection between the accident and employment.
- The burden to prove causal connection rested with the claimants; the Commissioner erred in shifting this to the employer.
- The Commissioner erroneously relied on police case documents.
- The penalty under Section 4-A was imposed without show-cause notice or opportunity of being heard.
Respondents (Claimants):
- The deceased had obtained the supervisor’s permission before leaving for the tea break.
- The absence of a canteen justified leaving the premises for refreshments.
- The notional extension principle and causal connection were established by facts and supporting documents.
- Reliance on police documents is permissible as per authorities.
- Imposition of penalty ought to follow statutory procedure.
Factual Background
The case arose from the death of a toll plaza computer operator who, during his night shift, left the tollbooth with permission to take a tea break due to lack of a canteen facility. While returning from the nearby village, he was killed in a traffic accident. His legal heirs sought compensation under the Employees Compensation Act. The Commissioner awarded compensation and imposed a penalty on the employer, who contested both the causal connection and the imposition of penalty in this appeal.
Statutory Analysis
- Section 3: Liability of employer for compensation for injuries “arising out of and in the course of employment.”
- Section 4-A: Requires prompt payment of compensation and provides for imposition of penalty; interpreted to require notice and opportunity before penalty.
- Discussion focused on the interpretation and application of “arising out of and in the course of employment” and the use of notional extension as recognized by judicial precedent.
- Emphasized the summary, welfare-oriented purpose of the Act, permitting reliance on a broader range of evidence subject to preponderance of probability.
Dissenting / Concurring Opinion Summary
No dissenting or concurring opinions are recorded in the judgment.
Procedural Innovations
- Reiterated that penalty proceedings under the Employees Compensation Act require specific notice and opportunity to be given to the employer, even if they have participated fully in the compensation hearing.
- Allowed consideration of police and other non-traditional evidence, reaffirming the less formal, summary procedure in compensation claims.
Alert Indicators
- ✔ Precedent Followed