Delhi High Court Justice Manoj Kumar Ohri ruled on 23 July 2026 that accidents during lunch breaks at work are covered under employment laws. According to Mint, the court held that the construction site where the employee was working and having lunch falls within the scope of employment, rejecting the insurance company's argument that lunch breaks sever the nexus between employment and accidents. The court emphasized that "A temporary break for taking meals does not, by itself, sever the nexus between employment and the accident."
Yashpal, a supervisor at a construction company in Bhalswa, was having lunch on 22 June 2010 when an iron rod fell from a mobile crane, resulting in the amputation of his left leg. As reported by Mint, under the Employees' Compensation Act, 1923, the insurance company was directed to pay ₹7.86 lakh at 12% per annum with effect from 22 July 2010, according to a 2016 order of the Commissioner of Employees' Compensation, Delhi. The court rejected the insurance company's objections about Yashpal's 75% disability claim, as the disability certificate issued by the competent Medical Board assessed his permanent disability accordingly.
The insurance company challenged the compensation on several grounds, including no employee-employer relationship with the crane owner, lack of disability certificate, and Yashpal's supervisor designation excluding him from employee status. According to Mint, the court rejected these arguments, stating that "The mere designation assigned to a workman is not conclusive. What is relevant is the nature of duties actually discharged." The court observed that "Apart from the bald plea taken in the written statement, no material has been brought on record to establish that Yashpal was discharging managerial or administrative functions so as to exclude him from the purview of the Act." The court also noted that the Commissioner accepted evidence that Yashpal was engaged at the construction site and suffered injuries during employment, making this a "finding of fact that does not warrant interference in the present appeal."
The court accepted the Commissioner's reliance on medical evidence showing 75% disability due to the left leg amputation. As reported by Mint, advocate Mayank Parashar from Clasis Law explained that the high court accepted the medical evidence and assessed the loss of earning capacity accordingly, rejecting the insurance company's objections about the disability claim. The court held that "The commissioner's order does not need any interference by the high court and ordered the insurance company to pay."
The ruling comes under the new Labour Code — Occupational Safety, Health and Working Conditions Code, 2020, which places greater emphasis on preventive safety measures. According to Mint, the court's decision clarifies that the actual nature of an employee's work, rather than their designation, must be considered in such cases. The ruling sets a precedent for lunch break accident compensation under employment law, emphasizing that "in such cases what needs to be seen is the actual nature of work performed by the said employee rather than what is his designation."
