An employee chooses to ride a bicycle to work every day. One morning, during his usual commute, he gets into a serious accident. The incident occurs on a public road, far from the employer’s premises. As a result of the accident, he suffers a grave injury and loses his right leg.
The employee files for compensation, claiming the accident happened in the course of his employment. He believes the employer has a duty to support him financially due to the permanent disability. The employer, however, argues that the incident happened outside the workplace and was not linked to any work duty.
This situation brings forth a legal dilemma. The key question revolves around whether commuting qualifies as “in the course of employment,” especially when the employer neither provides transportation nor has any control over the route.
Issues of the Case
- Does the employee’s daily commute form part of his employment?
- Can an employer be held liable for injuries caused during travel to work?
- What legal protections apply when the commute is voluntary and not directed by the employer?
- Does the mode of travel (bicycle) make any difference in determining employer liability?
The core issue lies in interpreting the scope of the term “arising out of and in the course of employment.” If a court finds that the commute directly relates to the job, liability may fall on the employer. If not, the claim could be dismissed.
Principles and Related Case Law
Courts have often drawn a line between work-related travel and ordinary commuting. Generally, accidents during a routine journey to and from work do not entitle the employee to compensation, unless certain exceptions apply.
One key principle is the “notional extension” of employment. This concept allows a broader view of the employment sphere in certain cases. For instance, in General Manager, B.E.S.T. Undertaking v. Mrs. Agnes, the Supreme Court of India extended the boundaries of employment to include areas not strictly within workplace limits, especially when there’s a direct link between the journey and employment obligations.
Another landmark ruling is Regional Director, E.S.I. Corporation v. Francis De Costa. In this case, the court ruled that the employee was not eligible for compensation as he was injured while commuting on his own, without any requirement or control by the employer. The court emphasized that employment must be the key reason for the presence of the employee at the accident spot.
So, unless the employer has provided transport, mandated a specific route, or benefited directly from the employee’s travel, liability is unlikely.
Judgement
Based on established legal standards, the employer is not liable in this case. The journey was the employee’s personal decision. There is no evidence that the employer influenced the mode of travel, the time, or the route.
Even though the injury is tragic, the accident did not occur during any work assignment or employer-controlled activity. The use of a bicycle, while practical and eco-friendly, was entirely voluntary. The employer had no role in choosing or approving it.
Hence, the court would likely rule that the incident falls outside the scope of employment. Since it lacks a direct connection to the job duties, no compensation under employment law would be granted. The decision is a key reminder of how courts assess commuting-related claims—based on control, direction, and purpose, rather than sympathy.
