Brief Introduction to the Case

In April 1999, Wu and Huang contracted the Taizhou Water Supply Daxia Catering and Kitchen Department for one year; The main content of the contract is that the catering and kitchen department is under the jurisdiction of the Water Supply Daxia Administrative Department, and implements wage base contracting. The contractor is responsible for managing the kitchen, etc. The seafood in the Water Supply Da Xia Catering Department is supplied by Luo, and at the same time, Luo provides a monthly rebate of 1000 yuan to Zhang, who is responsible for the aquaculture of seafood in the Water Supply Da Xia; Later, due to a decrease in purchasing seafood from Luo during the summer of water supply, Zhang informed Luo that he believed it was due to Wu reporting poor seafood quality to the leader of the summer of water supply. Therefore, Luo and Zhang discussed multiple times to teach Wu a lesson. At around 8:00 pm on October 30, 1999, Wu returned home early and was killed by a murderer purchased by Luo and Zhang on the Shuangpu Village section of Provincial Highway 82, Huangjiao Road. On September 27, 2001, Wu's wife applied to the Taizhou Labor and Social Security Bureau (hereinafter referred to as the Social Security Bureau) for the recognition of work-related injuries among employees of the enterprise. On November 19, 2002, the Social Security Bureau issued the Work Injury (2002) No. 20 Enterprise Employee Work Injury Determination, believing that Wu's injury was not a work injury. Therefore, Wu's wife sued the court on the grounds of Wu's improper performance of duties and the Social Security Bureau's determination of the facts, requesting the court to revoke the Social Security Bureau's determination that it was not a work-related injury.

Key points of analysis

1、 The key to the facts of this case lies in whether Wu fulfilled his duties and was killed; To investigate whether Wu has fulfilled his duties, it is necessary to examine a series of facts such as the contract he signed with Water Supply Daxia, the relevant job responsibilities of Water Supply Daxia, and why he was killed. From the relevant factual evidence in this case, it can be concluded that Wu's death was caused by a vendetta, rather than by fulfilling his duties, mainly manifested as:

1. The content of the contract signed between Wu and Water Supply Daxia indicates that the quality control of seafood does not belong to the terms of the contract signed between Wu and Water Supply Daxia. Wu's responsibility is to control the quality of cooked dishes and kitchen management.

2. The rules and regulations on the job responsibilities of the purchaser, administrative chef, and receiver provided by Water Supply Summer stipulate that the purchaser is responsible for daily material procurement, the receiver is responsible for ensuring the quality of the purchased materials, and the administrative chef is fully responsible for kitchen management and ensuring the quality of the dishes. This also indicates that controlling the quality of seafood is not within the scope of Wu's job responsibilities.

3. The decrease in the quantity of seafood purchased by Water Supply Da Xia from Luo is due to the fact that Water Supply Da Xia has equipped its own vehicles for procurement; At the same time, Zhang informed Luo that the decrease in the quantity of seafood purchased by Water Supply Daxia was due to Wu's reflection of poor quality to Water Supply Daxia, without factual basis. Therefore, the Zhejiang Provincial High People's Court only found in the second instance criminal ruling that Zhang informed Luo that the decrease in the quantity of seafood purchased was due to Wu's reflection of poor quality of seafood to the leadership of Water Supply Daxia, As for whether the facts mentioned by Zhang exist and whether Wu has truly reported them to the leaders of Water Supply Daxia, the second instance ruling did not confirm them.

4. The leaders of Water Supply Daxia and Huang, who jointly contracted the kitchen with Wu, have not heard that Wu has reported to Water Supply Daxia that Luo's seafood quality is not good.

From the above analysis of facts, it can be seen that checking the quality of seafood is not within the scope of Wu's contract and job responsibilities, and there is no evidence to prove that Wu reported the fact that Luo's seafood quality was poor to the leader of Water Supply Daxia. Therefore, Wu's death was not due to fulfilling his duties.

2、 Wu's place of death did not occur in the workplace, and Wu returned home because he left work early.

3、 Wu's death was caused by Zhang and Luo venting their personal grudges. As for Luo, with the decrease in seafood supply, his economic benefits also decrease. As for Zhang, due to the decrease in seafood supply from Luo, his rebates are also lost. Therefore, the second instance ruling clearly states that Luo and Zhang held a grudge against Wu and repeatedly discussed beating him.

4、 Article 8 (5) of the Implementation Measures for Work Injury Insurance for Enterprise Employees in Zhejiang Province stipulates that "personal injury caused by the performance of duties" shall be recognized as work injury, and in general, the following conditions shall be met: 1. Employees shall truly perform their duties and use legal means; 2. Eliminate personal hatred; 3. Occurred in the workplace. The death of Wu in this case does not meet the above conditions.

Key points of judgment

After Wu's wife filed a lawsuit with the court, the first instance court heard Wu's wife, the social security bureau, and a third party providing water to Da Xia, and argued that:

1. The contract signed by Wu and Water Supply Daxia is legal and valid. According to the relevant content of the contract, the relationship between the two parties is a legal relationship of labor contract.

2. According to the contract and job responsibilities, it is not within the scope of Wu's responsibility to control the quality of seafood. The leaders of Water Supply Daxia and Huang, who contracted with Wu, have not heard of Wu's report of poor seafood quality supplied by Luo. Therefore, Wu's wife believes that Wu's death was due to fulfilling his duties and lacking factual and legal basis.

3. The social security bureau's actions are not specific administrative actions for determining work-related injuries, with sufficient evidence, legal procedures, and correct application of laws.

Judgment result

Maintain the recognition of work-related injuries (2002) No. 20 issued by the Labor and Social Security Bureau of Taizhou City on November 19, 2002.

[Contributed by Zhou Xiangen]