1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION FIRST APPEAL NO. 1203 OF 2008 FIRST APPEAL NO. 1203 OF 2008 FIRST APPEAL NO. 1203 OF 2008 M/s. Vital Electronics Mfg. Company ...Appellant Versus Smt. Vandana Vijay Shivdas & Ors. ...Respondents Mr. Amol B. Desai, Advocate, for the appellant. Mr. T.J.Mendon, Advocate, for respondents Nos.1 & 3. CORAM: J.H.BHATIA,J CORAM: J.H.BHATIA,J CORAM: J.H.BHATIA,J DATED: 17th October, 2008. DATED: 17th October, 2008. DATED: 17th October, 2008. P.C P.C P.C. 1. Heard learned Counsel for the parties. 2. The deceased Vijay Mahadev Shivdas was employed in the factory of the appellant and admittedly, during the recess for lunch, he had left the factory to take his lunch and after taking meals, when he was coming back on a two wheeler, an ambulance came in a high speed and dashed against the said two wheeler. In that accident, 2 Vijay died. His legal heirs and dependents filed an application for compensation under the Workmen’s Compensation Act. The appellant/ opposite party, contended that the deceased was not on duty when he met with the accident and he submitted that the deceased was covered by the ESI Act and therefore, the Commissioner for Workmen’s Compensation had no jurisdiction. The both the contentions were repelled by the Additional Commissioner. 3. From the record, it appears that there is no dispute that within the factory premises, there was no canteen nor there was any place for taking meals. Therefore, the deceased Vijay had left the premises to take meals during the recess time and he met with a fatal accident while returning to the factory. The lunch period has to be treated as the duty time. He was required to leave the premises for taking meals only because the management had not provided for any canteen facility within the factory premises. Therefore, I am unable to accept the contention that he was not on duty. Even though the appellant had contended that the deceased was covered by the ESI Act, but the record reveals that the necessary forms and applications were not filled in and submitted. The appellant appears to have produced only one challan to show that the 3 necessary premium was paid, but he did not produce any documentary evidence to support the claim that the deceased was covered under the ESI Act. The appellant also did not make an application before the Commissioner for Workmen’s Compensation to implead the ESI Commissioner to establish that the deceased was, in fact, covered under the Scheme. 4 Taking into consideration the facts of the case, I do not find that any question of law is involved in the present matter. Therefore, the Appeal stands dismissed. 5. As the Appeal itself is dismissed, the Civil Application No.2912 of 2008 does not survive and stands disposed of. (J.H.BHATIA, J.) (J.H.BHATIA, J.) (J.H.BHATIA, J.)