- (1.) The following substantial question of law arises in the present case: i) Whether a claimant having been injured on account of murderous assault 15 minutes prior to the starting of his shift will not be entitled to the compensation under the Workmen Compensation Act, 1923 and whether he cannot be said to be "employee" under Section 2(n)(ii) of the Act?
(2.) The learned Commissioner has relied upon Regional Director, E.S.L Corporation and Anr. v. Francis De Costa and Anr., 1997 AIR(SC) 432 and held that the Appellant did not receive injury during the course of employment.
(3.) I have heard counsel for the Appellant and gone through the abovesaid judgment. A perusal of the judgment indicates that the Apex Court in the said case while interpreting "employment injury" as defined in Section 2(d) of the Employees' State Insurance Act vis-a-vis disablement benefit under Section 51 of the said Act have held that injury suffered by an employee in the said case one kilometer way from the factory caused by an accident would not be an employment injury under Section 2(8) of the Employees' State Insurance Act. Section 2(8) defining 'employment injury' reads as follows: 2(8). "employment injury" means a personal injury to an employee caused by accident or an occupational disease arising out of and in the course of his employment, being an insurable employment, whether the accident occurs or the occupational disease is contracted within or outside the territorial limits of India.;