Orissa High Court

Bichitra Nanda Mohapatra & Anr vs Regional Director on 25 April, 2025

Author: S.K. Panigrahi

Bench: S.K. Panigrahi

                                                                 Signature Not Verified
                                                                 Digitally Signed
                                                                 Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR
                                                                 Reason: Authentication
                                                                 Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK
                                                                 Date: 05-May-2025 19:35:07




                 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK

                               FAO No.157 of 2024

       (From the judgment dated 13.02.2024 passed by the Learned District
       Judge-cum-ESI Court, Cuttack in ESI Misc. Case No.31 of 2014)

       Bichitra Nanda Mohapatra & Anr.             ....                     Appellant(s)

                                    -versus-
       Regional Director, ESI Corporation, ....                       Respondent (s)
       Bhubaneswar & Anr.

     Advocates appeared in the case throughHybrid Mode:

       For Appellant (s)           :                    Mr.Ganeswar Behera, Adv.



       For Respondent (s)          :               Mr. Amarendra Prasad Ray, Adv.


                 CORAM:
                 DR. JUSTICE S.K. PANIGRAHI

                     DATE OF HEARING:-04.04.2025
                    DATE OF JUDGMENT:-25.04.2025
     Dr. S.K. Panigrahi, J.

1. The Appellants, through the present appeal, challenge the judgment

dated 13.02.2024 passed by the Learned District Judge-cum-ESI Court,

Cuttack in ESI Misc. Case No.31 of 2014, whereby the said case was

dismissed on contest against the Respondents/ Opposite Parties.

I. FACTUAL MATRIX OF THE CASE:

2. The brief facts of the case are as follows:

Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK

(i) Respondent No. 2, M/s Pasupati Feeds, the employer, operates a

factory situated at Tangi-Kotasahi, Cuttack, and maintains its Head

Office at 95C, New Industrial Estate, Phase-III, Jagatpur, within the

district of Cuttack. The firm is engaged in the business of

manufacturing poultry and cattle feed and marketing the same both

within and outside the State of Odisha.

(ii) In the course of its business operations, M/s Pasupati Feeds also

oversees the sale and breeding of poultry at field farms managed by

private owners. The firm supplies chicks, medicines, and poultry feed

to these farm owners, who, in turn, rear the birds and sell themupon

attaining a specified weightat a contractually agreed price to

designated dealers, in accordance with the directions issued by M/s

Pasupati Feeds.

(iii) For the effective implementation of these activities, the firm has

established several branch offices. Employees engaged in supervisory

functions in this context are designated as Integration Supervisors or

Field Supervisors. One such branch office was located at Chhanagiri,

in the district of Khurda.

(iv) The firm is registered under the Employees' State Insurance Act, 1948,

and its Employer Code Number is 4400004086000002.

(v) The deceased, Shakti Prasad Mohapatra, son of Bichitra Nanda

Mohapatra, aged about 26 years and a resident of TarataSasan, via

Asureswar, P.S. Nemalo, District Cuttack, was designated as an

Integration Supervisor/Field Supervisor by M/s Pasupati Feeds on

08.08.2010 and joined duties on the same day at the Tangi Office. He

Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK

was covered under the Employees' State Insurance Act, 1948and was

issued an Identity Card by the ESI Corporation bearing Insurance No.

4400499228 on 02.09.2010. At the time of the accident, the deceased

was posted at the Chhanagiri Branch in the district of Khurda.

(vi) The primary responsibility of an Integration Supervisor/Field

Supervisor is to oversee the sale and breeding of poultry at field

farms. During the performance of their duties, they are required to

carry a weighing machine and a Bird Sale Book from their office to the

field farms, where they record the weight of the birds in the said

holiday, as maximum lifting of stock from the field farms typically

takes place early on Sunday mornings due to market demand. In lieu

of Sunday, they are granted a weekly off on another day, depending

on business exigencies. In order to facilitate Sunday sales, Field

Supervisors often travel to the field farms on Saturday night or early

Sunday morning to carry out weighment. Upon completion of the

process, the birds are loaded onto trucks for delivery to designated

destinations. Thereafter, the Field Supervisors return to their office

and hand over the weighing machine and the Bird Sale Book to the

Office-in-Charge.

(vii) While the deceased was posted at the Chhanagiri Branch, the branch

was headed by Sri Bijaya Kumar Mohapatra, son of Sekhar Chandra

Mohapatra, a resident of At/Po. Uradha, Via Boiroi, P.S. Govindpur,

District Cuttack, who was serving as the Integration In-Charge and

Head of the Branch. Another employee, Sri Subash Chandra Swain,

Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK

son of Fakir Chandra Swain, of Village Talapada, P.O. Odasingh, P.S.

Salipur, District Cuttack, was also working as a Field Supervisor at the

said branch.

(viii) On the night of 11.06.2011 (Saturday), the deceased proceeded to the

poultry farm of Sri BauribandhuPatra located at Lekhanpur,

Sarangadharpur, District Nayagarh, and stayed there overnight. In the

early hours of 12.06.2011 (Sunday), he supervised the weighing and

lifting of birds as part of his official duties. Upon completion of the

task, he returned and handed over the key, weighing machine, and

Bird Sale Book to Sri Bijaya Kumar Mohapatra, the Branch In-Charge,

in the presence of Sri Subash Chandra Swain, at approximately 6:30

AM on the same day.

(ix) While returning to the Head Office at Jagatpur, in compliance with

instructions from his employer, the deceased met with a fatal accident

at around 7:45 AM on 12.06.2011. He was riding a motorcycle (TVS-

100 DLX) bearing Registration No. OR-05-P-9030 when he was hit

from behind by a Bolero vehicle (bearing Registration No. OR-02-AZ-

6424) on National Highway 5, near the Pitapalli Bypass Overbridge,

Khurda. As a result, he sustained grievous injuries and was

immediately taken to the District Headquarters Hospital, Khurda. He

was subsequently referred to Capital Hospital, Bhubaneswar, where

he was declared dead by 10:00 AM the same day.

(x) The accidental death of the deceased occurred during the course of his

employment and arose out of the discharge of his official duties. The

Employees' State Insurance Corporation, upon being apprised of the

Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK

incident, disbursed funeral expenses amounting to Rs. 10,000 to the

parents of the deceased on 19.08.2011. The deceased was unmarried

and is survived by his aged parents, the present applicants, who are

now facing considerable financial hardship due to the untimely

demise of their son.

(xi) Following the accident, the employer promptly informed the local

police, and the Branch Office staff submitted a formal intimation.

Additionally, the elder brother of the deceased, upon receiving

information about the incident, reached the hospital and lodged an

FIR at Khurda Police Station under the relevant provisions of law.

Subsequently, on 14.06.2011, the employer submitted a detailed

accident report to the appropriate Branch Office of the ESI

Corporation at Choudwar, District Cuttack.

(xii) The Branch Manager, Mr. G.A. Khan, submitted the Employment

Injury Report in respect of the deceased to the Regional Director,

Employees' State Insurance Corporation, following the accident.

However, in the said report, the Branch Manager expressed

reservations regarding the admissibility of the case as an employment

injury, citing the following discrepancies and observations:

a. There is a variance in the reported time of the accident: the

Accident Report mentions 8:15 AM, whereas the First

Information Report (FIR) records the time as 7:45 AM.

b. According to the employer's version, the accident occurred

due to the motorcycle hitting a road divider while the insured

person (IP) was riding. However, the FIR contradicts this

Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK

version and states that a Bolero vehicle bearing Registration No.

OR-02-AZ-6428 dashed into the motorcycle.

c. The employer failed to submit a written declaration affirming

that the insured person was on duty on the date of the accident,

i.e., 12.06.2011, which was a Sunday.

d. No documentary evidence has been furnished to show that

any formal direction or order was issued by the employer

instructing the deceased to work on Sunday.

e. The Accident Report submitted by the employer was

incomplete. Although the accident took place in Khurda, the

report failed to specify the reason for the deceased's visit to that

location. Moreover, since the date of the accident was a Sunday

(a weekly holiday), it was inferred that the accident could not be

classified as one occurring during the course of employment or

during authorized commuting.

(xiii) Subsequently, the father of the deceased submitted an application

before the Regional Director, ESIC, Bhubaneswar, seeking

disbursement of the 'Dependant's Benefit' under the applicable

provisions of the Employees' State Insurance Act, 1948. In response,

the Deputy Director (Benefits) vide letter dated 09.07.2012,

communicated that the claim was not admissible, as it was

determined that the deceased was not on official duty at the time of

the accident.

(xiv) Aggrieved by the decision of the Regional Director, ESIC, Odisha,

rejecting their claim for Dependant's Benefit, the father of the

Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK

deceased filed an application before the Insurance Commissioner,

New Delhi, on 24.12.2012, seeking a review of the said decision.

(xv) In response, the Deputy Director (Bft), Regional Office, Odisha, Sri

S.C. Das, informed the applicant by letter dated 26.06.2013 that the

Headquarters Office had communicated, vide letter dated 20.06.2013,

its decision to uphold the earlier rejection by the Regional Director.

However, a copy of the said communication dated 20.06.2013 was

never furnished to the applicants.

(xvi) Finding no efficacious alternative remedy, the appellants were

constrained to file ESI Misc. Case No. 31 of 2014 before the Court of

the Learned District Judge-cum-ESI Court, Cuttack, under Sections 75

and 77 of the Employees' State Insurance Act, 1948, challenging the

illegality and arbitrariness of the decisions dated 09.07.2012 and

18/20.06.2013 passed by the Regional Director and the Insurance

Commissioner, respectively. The appellants sought a direction to

Respondent No. 1 i.e., the ESI Corporation to grant them Dependant's

Benefit in accordance with the provisions of the Employees' State

Insurance Act, 1948, along with such other reliefs as may be deemed

just and proper in the circumstances of the case.

(xvii) Upon issuance of notice, the respondents appeared and filed their

respective written statements, denying all allegations made by the

appellants.

(xviii) Respondent No. 1, in its written statement, contended that the

accident did not arise out of or in the course of the deceased's

employment. Respondent No. 2, the employer, in its written statement,

Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK

asserted that it had complied with all its obligations and denied any

liability or negligence.

(xix) The appellant examined three witnesses in support of his case.

Applicant/Appellant No. 1 was examined as PW1. PW2 was the Field

Supervisor at the Chhanagiri Branch, and PW3 was the deceased's

elder brother, who had lodged the FIR at Khurda Police Station.

Despite multiple intimations to the concerned authorities, the Branch

Manager of the ESIC, Choudwar, and the employer submitted an

incomplete and formalistic Employment Injury Report, which

appeared to shift the blame onto the management. The Branch

Manager, Mr. G.A. Khan, failed to appreciate the seriousness of the

matter and did not take any steps to involve the ESIC Branch Office at

Khurda, which had territorial jurisdiction over the site of the accident.

Exhibits marked Ext. 1 to Ext. 12 were filed and relied upon by the

appellants during the proceedings.

(xx) Opposite Party No. 1 examined the then Branch Manager of ESIC as

OPW-1 and proved certain documents as Exhibits A to B/1. However,

the authorities misapplied and misinterpreted Sections 52 and 2(8) of

the Employees' State Insurance Act, 1948.

(xxi) Section 2(8) clearly defines "employment injury" as any personal

injury to an employee caused by an accident or occupational disease

arising out of and in the course of employment, whether occurring

within or outside the territorial limits of India. Further, the Accident

Report submitted by the employer on 14.06.2011 under Regulation 68

of the ESI (General) Regulations, 1950, to the Branch Office at

Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK

Choudwar, unequivocally stated that the injury was sustained during

the course of employment. The rejection of such a report was patently

illegal and called for judicial intervention by the learned Court below.

(xxii) Although Opposite Party No. 2 appeared before the learned Court,

participated in the inquiry, and adduced evidence in support of the

appellants' case, such evidence was not formally recorded, which

resulted in prejudice to the appellants.

(xxiii)Following the rejection of the review petition, the appellants

approached the Learned District Judge-cum-ESI Court, Cuttack,

which registered the matter as ESI Misc. Case No. 31 of 2014.

(xxiv)By judgment dated 13.02.2024, the Learned District Judge-cum-ESI

Court, Cuttack, dismissed the appellants' claim.

(xxv) Aggrieved by the said judgment, the appellants have preferred the

present appeal.

II. SUBMISSIONS ON BEHALF OF THE APPELLANTS:

3. Learned counsel for the Appellants earnestly made the following

submissions in support of his contentions

(i) The judgment dated 13.02.2024, passed by the Learned District Judge-

cum-ESI Court, Cuttack in ESI Misc. Case No. 31 of 2014, is ex facie

illegal, contrary to the evidence on record, and against the weight of

materials presented during trial. As such, the judgment is

unsustainable in law and liable to be set aside.

(ii) The learned court below failed to properly appreciate the submissions

made by the appellants in their written statement as well as during

oral arguments. Instead, it erroneously accepted the contentions of

Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK

Respondent No. 1--the ESI Corporation--without due examination of

the facts and law, rendering the impugned judgment legally

untenable.

(iii) The learned court below erred in holding that an application under

Sections 75 and 77 of the Employees' State Insurance Act, 1948, was

not maintainable, misconstruing the scope of the provisions, which

are explicitly applicable to disputes involving entitlement to benefits

under the Actirrespective of whether the respondent is an

organization or a statutory authority.

(iv) The learned court below failed to adopt a beneficial interpretation of

the Employees' State Insurance Act, 1948while considering the

Employment Injury Report submitted by the employer under

Regulation 68 of the ESI (General) Regulations, 1950. The court gave

undue emphasis to minor technical defects, such as a blank column or

omission, and disregarded the fact that the accident in question

occurred during the course of employment.

(v) The finding of the learned court below placing the burden on the

appellants to prove liability for alleged outstanding dues is manifestly

erroneous, particularly when the respondents themselves were unable

to specify the quantum of such dues.

(vi) The learned court below also fell into error in holding that

Respondent No. 1, having paid the funeral expenses of Rs. 10,000/-

under Regulation 95-D, was not obligated to clarify its further

liability. The fact that such an amount was sanctioned is itself a

Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK

significant acknowledgment of the employment status of the

deceased.

(vii) The learned court failed to appreciate the correct scope and

application of Sections 2(8) and 52 of the Employees' State Insurance

Act, 1948. The deceased was an insured person under the

employment of M/s Pasupati Feeds and was performing his official

duties at the time of the accident, albeit on a Sunday. Owing to the

nature of his work, his weekly off was granted on a weekday instead.

The fatal accident occurred while he was returning to the Head Office

in accordance with instructions from his employer, thereby fulfilling

the criteria of "arising out of and in the course of employment."

(viii) The learned court misinterpreted the evidentiary value of the ESI

identity card, erroneously treating it as an appointment order. The

card is a general document for identification and attendance purposes

and does not reflect the field postings or nature of duty. The omission

of the place of posting in the identity card does not negate the factum

of employment or entitlement to benefits.

(ix) Undue importance was given to the absence of the deceased's name in

the attendance register for 12.06.2011 (Sunday), without appreciating

that the deceased was working in a field-based role and had been

deputed to the Chhanagiri (Khurda) unit as per established practice.

The omission, if any, was purely technical. Moreover, the employer

had confirmed the road accident on 12.06.2011 and the ESIC had

disbursed funeral expenses under Regulation 95-D. Hence, the

Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK

appellants' entitlement to Dependant's Benefit cannot be denied on

this basis.

(x) It is a well-established principle of law that in cases of ambiguity or

technical lapses, the interpretation that advances the object and

purpose of the beneficial legislation must prevail. The Employees'

State Insurance Act, 1948is a social welfare legislation enacted to

protect employees. Any inadvertent omissions in documentation by

the employer ought not to result in the denial of legitimate claims to

the beneficiaries, especially in a contributory welfare scheme. The

learned court below failed to apply this settled principle while

adjudicating the present matter.

III. SUBMISSIONS OF BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENTS:

4. Per contra, the learned counsel for the Respondents earnestly made

the following submissions in support of his contentions:

(i) Section 52 of the Employees' State Insurance Act, 1948, provides that

when an insured person dies as a result of an employment injury

sustained during the course of his employment, Dependants' Benefit

shall be payable to his dependants.As per Section 2(8) of the Act,

"employment injury" means a personal injury to an employee caused

by an accident or occupational disease arising out of and in the course

of his employment, whether the accident occurs or the disease is

contracted within or outside the territorial limits of India.In addition,

Section 51-A creates a statutory presumption that an accident

occurring in the course of employment shall, in the absence of

Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK

evidence to the contrary, be deemed to have arisen out of that

employment.

(ii) Late Shakti Prakash Mohapatra (Insurance No. 4400499228),

employed with M/s Pasupati Feeds (Employer Code No.

44000040860000002), tragically passed away in a road accident on

12.06.2011 near Pitapalli, Khurda, while riding his motorcycle. The

employer submitted an Accident Report under Regulation 68 of the

Employees' State Insurance (General) Regulations, 1950 on 14.06.2011,

but the report did not specify whether the accident occurred during

the course of employment or while commuting.

(iii) Following the submission, the Branch Manager of the ESI

Corporation, Choudwar, conducted an inquiry and filed a report on

14.09.2011. The investigation concluded that the accident occurred on

a Sunday, a non-working day for the deceased, and no duty had been

formally assigned to him on that date. As a result, it was determined

that the accident did not arise out of or in the course of employment.

(iv) Based on these findings, the ESI Corporation concluded that the

incident did not qualify as an "employment injury" under Section 2(8)

of the Act, and consequently, the dependants were not eligible for

Dependants' Benefit.

(v) The petitioners' reliance on Sections 51-A, 51-B, and 52 of the

Employees' State Insurance Act, 1948has been misplaced, as the

accident in question did not take place during the course of

employment, rendering the statutory presumptions inapplicable.

Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK

(vi) The nature of the deceased's work schedule did not conform to the

conventional Sunday-off pattern. Employees such as the deceased

operated under a rotational weekly off policy devised by the

employer to ensure uninterrupted operations, often requiring them to

work on Sundays.

(vii) On 12.06.2011, the deceased was engaged in work consistent with the

duties assigned to him, and the employer was informed of the

accident in a timely manner. An FIR was also lodged by the

deceased's brother, and the employer complied with all reporting

obligations.

(viii) As a humanitarian gesture, the employer disbursed an ex gratia

amount of Rs. 1,50,000/- to the claimants by cheque dated 17.06.2011.

(ix) Despite the submission of the Accident Report, no further

correspondence or clarification was sought either by the claimants or

the ESI Corporation until receipt of legal notice in the present

proceedings. Only upon such notice did the employer become aware

of the repudiation of the claim, which appears to be on vague and

unsustainable grounds.

(x) Minor discrepancies relating to the time or narrative of the accident

should not overshadow the fact of accidental death, which remains

undisputed. Neither the FIR nor the accident report was authored by

eyewitnesses, and any inconsistencies are inconsequential to the

central issue.

(xi) The dependants are required to establish their status under the

Employees' State Insurance Act, 1948following which the liability for

Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK

payment of benefits lies with the ESI Corporation, not the employer.

The employer's establishment is covered under the Act, and it has

discharged all statutory obligations in good faith. No act of negligence

or non-compliance can be attributed to it.

IV. FINDINGS OF THE DISTRICT JUDGE-CUM-ESI COURT, CUTTACK:

5. TheDistrict Judge-cum-ESI Court, Cuttack, after reviewing the

pleadings, evidence, and hearing arguments from both parties, made

the following findings:

(i) Although it was established that the deceased was an employee of

M/s. Pasupati Feeds and had unfortunately died in a road accident on

12th June 2011, the Tribunal found a lack of sufficient documentary

evidence to support the petitioners' claim that Sundays were not

considered holidays for field staff or that the deceased was, in fact,

performing official duties for Opposite Party No. 2 on the date of the

incident.

(ii) The oral testimonies of the petitioners' witnessesP.W.1 (the father of

the deceased), P.W.2 (a colleague), and P.W.3 (the deceased's elder

brother)were found to be inconsistent on material facts. P.W.3

specifically stated that the deceased was employed at the Tangi-

Kotasahi unit of M/s. Pasupati Feeds and used to sign the attendance

documentary evidence establishing the deceased's deputation or

posting at Chhanagiri, Khurda. Conversely, P.W.2 claimed that both

he and the deceased were working under Opposite Party No. 2 at the

Chhanagiri unit and that the deceased had been assigned official

Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK

duties on the date of the accident by the Branch In-Charge. This

assertion, too, was not supported by any documentary record.

Furthermore, the testimony of P.W.1 and P.W.3 did not corroborate

the statements made by P.W.2 regarding the place of posting or duty

assignment.

(iii) The Tribunal accepted that the applicants were, in fact, the legal

dependants of the deceased within the meaning of the Employees'

State Insurance Act, 1948. However, it also observed that the

applicants failed to establish the requisite legal cause of action or

standing under the Act to sustain their claim for compensation.

(iv) Based on the above findings, the Tribunal concluded that the

applicants were not entitled to any benefits under the Employees'

State Insurance Act, 1948 or the Scheme framed thereunder.

Accordingly, the refusal by Opposite Party No. 1 to grant

Dependants' Benefit was neither illegal nor unjustified.

V. COURT'S REASONING AND ANALYSIS:

6. Heard the Learned Counsels for the parties and perused the

documents placed before this Court.

7. At the outset, it is necessary to delineate the scope of appellate

jurisdiction under Section 82(2) of the Employees' State Insurance Act,

1948. The provision permits an appeal to this Court only on a

substantial question of law. As a corollary, this Court does not

function as a second court of fact and cannot reassess evidence or

substitute its own conclusions for those reached by the District Judge-

Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK

cum-ESI Court, Cuttackunless the findings are shown to be perverse,

illegal, or unsupported by the record.

8. The appellants have preferred the present appeal under Section 82(2),

assailing the judgment dated 13.02.2024 passed by the Learned

District Judge-cum-ESI Court, Cuttack, in ESI Misc. Case No. 31 of

2014, whereby their claim for Dependant's Benefit under Section 52 of

the Employees' State Insurance Act, 1948 was rejected.

9. It is not in dispute that the deceased, Shakti Prasad Mohapatra, was

an insured person under the Act and was employed by M/s Pasupati

Feeds. His death occurred as a result of a motor vehicle accident on

12.06.2011.

10. Section 2(8) of the Employees' State Insurance Act, 1948 defines

"employment injury" as a personal injury caused by an accident

"arising out of and in the course of employment."

11. Section 51A of the Employees' State Insurance Act, 1948 introduces a

statutory presumption that an accident occurring in the course of

employment shall be presumed to arise out of it unless the contrary is

shown.

12. In the present case, the District Judge-cum-ESI Court,

Cuttackevaluated both oral and documentary evidence and concluded

that the presumption under Section 51A stood rebutted. It recorded

that the accident occurred on 12.06.2011, a Sunday, and there was no

written assignment or direction from the employer indicating that the

deceased had been officially deputed for duty on that day. The muster

roll, though not formally exhibited, was undisputed and reflected that

Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK

Sundays were regular weekly off days for employees, including the

deceased. Additionally, the Accident Report submitted by the

employer was incomplete, with critical fields such as duty location,

shift timings, and confirmation of duty status on the date of the

accident left blank. The oral testimonies of the appellants' witnesses

were also found to be inconsistent and lacking corroborative

documentary evidence, particularly in relation to the claim that the

deceased was posted at the Chhanagiri Branch at the time of the

accident.

13. The Court found that no document was placed on record to support

the claim that the deceased was deputed to Chhanagiri or was under

instructions to return to the Head Office at the time of the accident.

The inconsistencies in the testimonies of PW2 and PW3 were

specifically noted, and no corroborative material such as field orders,

duty rosters, or any communication from the employer was brought

on record.

14. The appellants argued that funeral expenses were sanctioned under

Regulation 95D and that this indicated an acknowledgment by the

Corporation. However, the District Judge-cum-ESI Court, Cuttack

rightly observed that such payment, being statutory and ex gratia in

nature, does not by itself establish that the accident was employment

related.

15. The District Judge-cum-ESI Court, Cuttack also noted that the

appellants had received compensation from the MACT and a separate

ex gratia payment from the employer. While these do not bar a claim

Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK

under the Employees' State Insurance Act, 1948, they reinforce that

some measure of relief was extended.