Case Study: Delhi High Court Clarifies Burden of Proof under ESI Act

Case:

Vijay Bahadur Singh & Anr. v. Employees State Insurance Corporation & Ors.
FAO 236/2013

Court and Date:

Delhi High Court
Hon’ble Justice Tejas Karia
Date of Judgment: 30 June 2025burden on esic or management th…

Relevant Law:

• Employees’ State Insurance Act, 1948 – Sections 2(8), 51A, 52, and 82
• Employees’ State Insurance (Central) Rules, 1950 – Rules 58 and 59

The case revolved around the presumption under Section 51A — that if an accident occurs during the course of employment, it is presumed to have arisen out of employment, unless there is evidence to the contrary.

Background:

The deceased, Mr. Sunil Kumar, was employed by M/s Himgiri Cars Pvt. Ltd. as an Administrative Officer and was later made Night In-Charge of the stockyard, replacing an employee, Mr. Dharmender Singh, who was removed due to misconduct.

On 5 December 2008, after completing his day shift, the deceased went to the stockyard to oversee operations, where he was murdered by the former night in-charge (accused) at around 10 p.m.

His parents (the appellants) filed a claim under Section 75 of the ESI Act, seeking compensation on the ground that his death arose out of and in the course of employment. However, the ESI Court dismissed their claim, holding that the death did not occur during the course of employment.

This led to the appeal under Section 82 before the Delhi High Court.

Legal Issue:

Whether the murder of an employee at the workplace by a co-worker can be considered an “accident arising out of and in the course of employment” under Section 2(8) of the ESI Act, and who bears the burden of proof to show that such death was outside employment.

Key Legal Findings:

1. Presumption under Section 51A:
   The Court reiterated that if an accident occurs during employment, it is presumed to arise out of employment, unless proven otherwise.
2. Doctrine of Notional Extension:
   The scope of employment isn’t confined to the physical workspace or working hours — it extends to connected duties or premises if a causal relationship exists between the work and the incident.
3. “Accidental Murder” Covered under ESI Act:
   Citing Rita Devi v. New India Assurance Co. Ltd. and Star Press v. Meena Devi, the Court held that murder can amount to an accident if the employee could not reasonably foresee or anticipate it.
4. Burden of Proof on ESIC/Management:
   The Court emphasized that it is the ESIC or employer’s burden to prove that the murder occurred outside employment, not the dependents’.
5. No Evidence of Personal Enmity:
   There was no evidence suggesting any personal animosity between the deceased and the accused outside of work. Thus, the death had a direct connection with employment.

Judgment:

Justice Tejas Karia held that:

• The murder was an accidental murder arising during and out of employment.
• The Doctrine of Notional Extension and Section 51A presumption applied in favor of the deceased.
• The ESIC failed to discharge the burden of proving that the murder occurred outside the course of employment.

Accordingly, the ESI Court’s order was set aside, and the dependents of the deceased were held entitled to:

• Dependent’s benefits and
• Funeral expenses,

as per Section 52 read with the First Schedule and applicable ESI Rules.
The ESIC was directed to settle benefits within 8 weeks of receiving the order.

Conclusion:

The Delhi High Court reaffirmed that under the ESI Act, when a death occurs during employment, a presumption of causal connection arises. Unless clear contrary evidence exists, such incidents — even a murder – may qualify as employment accidents.

The judgment strengthens employee protection by emphasizing that social welfare legislation must be liberally interpreted to support dependents of workers who lose their lives while performing their duties.

Key Learning:

• Presumption in Favour of Employee: Section 51A shifts the burden to the employer or ESIC.
• Notional Extension Doctrine: Employment extends beyond strict physical or time limits if the incident is connected to work.
• Accidental Murder Doctrine: Murder can be treated as an accident under the ESI Act when unforeseen and connected to employment.
• Employer’s Burden: Management or ESIC must prove the incident occurred outside employment.
• Social Welfare Objective: The ESI Act must be interpreted broadly and beneficially to serve its protective purpose.

Download the PDF copy of this Case:

Join the community that’s changing the way businesses handle compliance in India.