Karnataka High Court: In an appeal examining the scope of an employer’s liability under Section 3(1), Employees’ Compensation Act, 1923 (EC Act) particularly whether injuries sustained by an employee as a result of an intentional assault by the employer can be regarded as an “accident” arising out of and in the course of employment, the Single Judge Bench of Tara Vitasta Ganju, J., held that assault by the employer cannot be termed as “accident” arising out of and in the course of employment under Section 3(1), EC Act as it had no connection to the employment. Accordingly, the Court dismissed the appeal and upheld the judgment by the trail court dismissing the claim petition filed under Section 10, EC Act, praying for the compensation arising out of an accident at the workplace under Section 3(1), EC Act.
Background
The case arose when the deceased (original petitioner) was working in a stone quarry belonging to the respondent as a daily wager, absented himself from work for two days, and thereafter, when he resumed to work on 26 May 2010, the respondent abused and assaulted him with a piece of firewood which led to suffering injuries and permanent disability. A police complaint was lodged against the respondent-employer bearing under Sections 323 and 324, Penal Code, 1860 (IPC).
During the pendency of the compensation proceedings, the deceased was allegedly kidnapped and murdered, leading to separate criminal proceedings against the respondent and others for offences including murder. Thus, a claim petition was filed by the petitioners seeking compensation as a result of the injuries which were previously sustained by the original petitioner due to which he was unable to carry out his work.
The trial court held that the petitioner was injured, which could not be said to be in terms of Section 3, EC Act since it was not arising out of an accident at the workplace and thus, the claim petition filed under Section 10, EC Act was dismissed. The trial court further held that the incident complained of can only be termed as an assault and related offences under Sections 363, 302, 201 read with Section 149 IPC. The injury was sustained due to an assault and the subsequent death of the employee on 7 August 2010 did not have any nexus to the incident of 26 May 2010.
The appellants challenge the judgment passed by the trail court on the grounds that it suffered from an infirmity and there were two incidences, i.e., one of injury and the subsequent which led to the murder or death of the deceased and the trial court has wrongly considered the second incident to pass the impugned judgment and award.
The appellants in support of their claim mentioned the judgment passed by the Supreme Court, in B.E.S.T. Undertaking v. Agnes, 1963 SCC OnLine SC 252, which clarified the definition and held the doctrine of notional extension, holding that employment is not confined to the exact place or hours of work and may extend to the employee’s entry to and exit from the workplace, including access routes or transport necessitated by employment, depending on the facts of each case.
The appellants also mentioned the case of Daivshala v. Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd., 2025 SCC OnLine SC 1534, where the Supreme Court, while interpreting the meaning of “arising out of and in the course of his employment” held that, a restrictive meaning has been given to this phrase. Unless an employee can establish that the injury was caused or had its origin in the employment, he cannot succeed in a claim. The accident is to have arisen out of his employment and with a causal connection to the employment.
Decision and Analysis
The Court after examining the facts and evidence on record, was unable to find any infirmity with the detailed, reasoned impugned judgment passed by the trial Court, which had held that an assault cannot be termed as ‘accident’ within the meaning of Section 3,e EC Act. The death subsequent to injury was essentially a result of assault and the criminal proceedings has already been initiated against the respondent. Thus, the Court dismissed the appeal, holding that assault on the employeecannot be termed as the accident caused during the course of employment.
The Court, however, specified that the dismissal of this appeal will not preclude the appellants from taking appropriate remedies in accordance with law in relation to the criminal proceedings which are pending inter se between the parties.
[Swamy v. Kumara, 2026 SCC OnLine Kar 2992, decided on 4-2-2026]
*Judgment authored by: Justice Tara Vitasta Ganju
Advocates who appeared in this case:
For the Petitioners: B. Pramod, Advocate
For the Respondent: Jnanesh Kumar K., Advocate
