Delhi HC: Injury during lunch break at work site is 'in course of employment'
The Delhi High Court has upheld a compensation award of over ₹7.86 lakh to a construction site supervisor who lost his left leg after an iron rod being lifted by a mobile crane fell on him. The court ruled that an accident during a lunch break at the work site arose “out of and in the course of employment” under the Employees’ Compensation Act.
Justice Manoj Kumar Ohri dismissed an appeal filed by National Insurance Company Ltd., affirming the 2016 order of the Employees’ Compensation Commissioner. The Commissioner had directed the insurer to pay ₹7,86,492 with 12% annual interest from July 22, 2010.
The claimant told the Commissioner that he was employed as a supervisor at a construction site in Bhalswa, Delhi. On June 22, 2010, after completing his assigned work, he had gone for lunch when an iron rod being lifted by a mobile crane fell on him, causing injuries that resulted in the amputation of his left leg.
He sought compensation under the Employees’ Compensation Act, contending that the injuries arose in the course of his employment. The Commissioner accepted the claim, assessed the worker’s monthly wages at ₹6,000 and his loss of earning capacity at 75%, and awarded compensation with interest, holding the insurer liable.
In appeal, the insurer contended that there was no employer-employee relationship between the claimant and the crane owner. It also argued that the claimant, being a supervisor performing managerial duties, did not qualify as an “employee” under the Act. The insurer further contended that the accident occurred during a lunch break, and thus was not connected to employment.
Rejecting these submissions, the court, in its July 23 order, said the Commissioner’s findings were based on evidence and warranted no interference.
The court observed that merely describing the claimant as a supervisor was insufficient to exclude him from the definition of an employee. It noted that the insurer had failed to produce material to show that he performed managerial or administrative functions, which would have taken him outside the Act’s coverage.
Addressing the contention that the accident occurred during a lunch break, the court said: “The accident admittedly occurred at the work site while the claimant was present there in connection with his employment. A temporary break for taking meals does not, by itself, sever the nexus between employment and the accident.”
The court dismissed the appeal and directed that the amount deposited before the Commissioner, along with accrued interest, be released to the claimant in accordance with law.
The judgment reinforces the principle that workplace compensation laws are designed to protect workers, and that a short recess for meals does not break the employment relationship for the purpose of compensation. Legal experts say the ruling provides clarity for similar cases where injuries occur during breaks within the workplace premises.
