The Delhi High Court has determined that a temporary break for lunch at the workplace does not sever the connection between employment and accident for the purposes of the Employees’ Compensation Act, 1923. The Court was hearing an appeal against an award of ₹7,86,492 with 12% interest per annum made to a worker who lost his left leg after an accident at the construction site. The Delhi High Court dismissed the appeal and directed to pay the compensation to the workman.
In National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Yashpal & Ors., FAO 493/2016, Justice Manoj Kumar Ohri was considering an appeal against the award made by the Commissioner, Employees’ Compensation, Delhi under Section 30 of the Employees’ Compensation Act, 1923. The claimant, Yashpal, was working as a Supervisor at a construction site in Bhalswa, Delhi. He had gone for lunch at the worksite after completing his work on 22 June 2010 when an iron rod slipped from a mobile crane and injured him causing the amputation of his left leg.
The Insurance Company had challenged the award on various grounds including that the accident occurred during the lunch break of the claimant and, therefore, it was not in the course of employment. It further submitted that as the claimant was working as a Supervisor, he did not fall under the definition of the ‘employee’ under Section 2(dd) of the Act.
The Court dismissed the Insurance Company’s contentions and held that the accident had occurred at the worksite and the fact that the claimant had taken a temporary break for lunch does not deprive the connection between employment and the accident. Further, the Court held that the designation of the claimant as a Supervisor was not decisive as to his status and the real test was whether he performed managerial or administrative work. As no evidence on this was placed before the Court, it could not be concluded that the claimant did not fall under the definition of ‘employee’.
The Court further rejected the contention of the Insurance Company that there was no liability on their part to pay the compensation to the claimant. It held that no breach of the terms and conditions of the policy by the claimant had been shown. It further held that no substantial question of law had been raised against the findings of the Commissioner and, therefore, the appeal was dismissed. The Court directed that the amount deposited with the Commissioner/Registry along with the interest be paid to the claimant in accordance with law.
Source:
Case: National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Yashpal & Ors.,
Case Reference Number: FAO 493/2016
Criminal Appeal No.: 37073/2016
Date of Judgment: 23 July 2026
Coram: Justice Manoj Kumar Ohri