Ahmedabad: Gujarat High Court has upheld compensation for death of a youth who was killed while resisting a burglary in his company’s premises. The company, however, was opposed to paying compensation alleging that the employee was killed during a liquor-fuelled altercation.According to case details, Nishant Patel (20) was working as a ward boy with Superscan Imaging Centres in Surat. In Oct 2011, he was killed by three persons when he resisted their looting Rs 1.2 lakh from the company’s premises. One of the accused was an ex-employee of the company, who was sacked earlier for an attempted theft in the office.After Patel’s murder, his parents approached a labour court and claimed compensation under the Employees’ Compensation Act, 1923 from the company stating that their son had died while on duty.In 2017, the labour court awarded compensation of Rs 8.5 lakh and ordered the company to pay it to Nishant’s parents with 12% interest from 2011. The company appealed against the compensation order before HC and argued that Patel’s death was a murder simpliciter. The police probe revealed that a liquor bottle was found at the spot of murder, and FSL confirmed the presence of ethyl alcohol. The company argued that Patel was murdered during a fight while he was drinking with the accused persons.Patel’s parents opposed company’s claim by asserting that the death occurred due to an accident “arising out of and in the course of employment”, which is within the meaning of Section 3(1) of the Act, despite the incident being a homicide.After hearing the appeal, Justice J C Doshi noted that the employer did not properly prove its claim and found no evidence of prior animosity. Court also found the severity of injuries, including numerous stab wounds, made the altercation theory implausible.HC rejected the company’s appeal and said, “Here it is a case where deceased was murdered while he was in his employment, so there is a clear connection of murder with the employment. The injury, which deceased has sustained, has direct nexus to the employment and from that standpoint, analysing Section 3(1) of the ‘EC Act’, I found that the learned ex-officio commissioner, labour court, Surat, has passed the appropriate award and I justify the reasons therein and it deserves no interference.”
