[Case Review]

Lao Zhang, an employee of a security company, was assigned to an automobile company for security work, who usually work from 7:00 to 19:00. On the day of the incident, the automobile company organized staff to have a year-end dinner at 7 p.m. in a restaurant. Lao Zhang and other security personnel were also invited. In the evening, Lao Zhang and his fellows on the same shift got off duty early with the consent of the security leader. Unfortunately, Lao Zhang had a traffic accident when riding home to change clothes and was sent to the hospital. The traffic police department recognized that Lao Zhang wasn't responsible for the accident.

Later, Lao Zhang submitted an application to the Human Resources and Social Security Bureau for ascertainment of work-related injury. Upon investigation, it's finally considered that Lao Zhang had a traffic accident for which he wasn't principally responsible on the way from work and a work-related injury should be ascertained.

The security company providing labor dispatch service raised objections to the ascertainment of the Human Resources and Social Security Bureau, and sued to Pudong New Area People's Court of Shanghai to revoke the ascertainment.

The security company held that Lao Zhang's working hours are 7:00 to 19:00, but the traffic accident took place at about 18:10, indicating that Lao Zhang left his post without permission during working hours. Besides, he went home in the absence of his relieving personnel instead of going to the restaurant directly. Therefore, it is not a circumstance under which a work-related injury shall be ascertained as provided by the law.

[Case Study]
After the trial, Pudong New Area People's Court of Shanghai held that Article 14(6) of Regulation on Work-Related Injury Insurances explicitly stipulates that, "An employee shall be ascertained to have suffered from work-related injury if he is injured in a traffic accident for which he is not principally responsible or in an urban rail transit, passenger ferry or train accident on his way to or back from work." Seen from the time and place of the accident, Lao Zhang had the accident for which he wasn't principally responsible on the way from work, so, a work-related injury shall be ascertained.

Evidences show that Lao Zhang left early with the consent of the security leader, and the accident occurred in the reasonable route from the workplace to his residence. It's rational for him to change clothes before going to the dinner. So, going home rather than going to the restaurant directly can't interdict the ascertainment of a work-related injury.

The Human Resources and Social Security Bureau carried out investigations according to law after accepting the application for ascertainment of the work-related injury, then made the aforesaid decision within the statutory period and had it served in accordance with the law.

To sum up, Pudong New Area People's Court of Shanghai affirmed in the first instance that the work-related injury ascertainment by Human Resources and Social Security Bureau was made based on clear facts, correct application of laws and lawful procedure. The plaintiff's claim for revocation of the work-related injury ascertainment was dismissed for lack of factual and legal basis.

[Relevant Laws]

Administrative Litigation Law of the People's Republic of China

Article 69 Where the alleged administrative action has been taken under statutory procedures with conclusive evidence and correct application of laws and regulations, or the grounds for the plaintiff's application for the defendant to perform its statutory duties and responsibilities or make payment are unfounded, the people's court shall enter a judgment to dismiss the plaintiff's claims.

(Authors: Wang Yingge, Chen Weifeng, Pudong New Area People's Court of Shanghai)