Facts of the Case
A workman, employed in a private manufacturing company, lived 15 kilometers away from the factory premises. One morning, while traveling on his personal bike to report for duty at 9 a.m., he met with a fatal road accident. The mishap occurred five kilometers away from the workplace. His legal heirs sought compensation under the Employees’ Compensation Act, 1923, claiming the death occurred “during the course of employment.”
The employer declined the claim, arguing that the accident happened before the employee reached the workplace. They insisted that the employer’s liability only begins once the employee enters the work premises. This led to a legal battle to determine whether commuting could be treated as part of employment.
Issues of the Case
The court had to address the following legal issues:
- Does an accident that occurs while commuting to work fall within the scope of “arising out of and in the course of employment”?
- Is the employer liable to pay compensation if the accident took place outside the workplace?
- Can a worker’s routine travel route and timing be seen as a key factor in defining the scope of employment?
The main point of contention was whether the journey to the workplace had a direct connection to the employment itself. The court also examined if the employer had any role or control over the mode and timing of the commute.
Principles and Related Case Law
The legal principle rests on the interpretation of Section 3 of the Employees’ Compensation Act. This section requires the employer to pay compensation when an accident during the course of employment causes personal injury or death.
One landmark case relevant here is:
Saurashtra Salt Manufacturing Co. v. Bai Valu Raja (1958 AIR 881):
The Supreme Court held that even though the accident occurred outside the factory, it could still arise out of employment if the act of commuting had a close and causal connection to the job. The key takeaway from this case is that employment is not restricted to the premises but can include necessary actions related to the job.
Additionally, the “notional extension” doctrine applies here. According to this, the employment can extend to activities necessary and incidental to work, such as commuting, especially if the employer provides transport or if travel is a part of job duties.
Judgement
In similar recent rulings, courts have leaned in favor of the employee. In this case, the court determined that although the employer had no direct control over the worker’s mode of travel, the journey was essential for the performance of the job. The workman used a regular route and was traveling to attend duty at a fixed time. Therefore, the accident was not a random event but occurred during an act necessary for employment.
The judge concluded that the death did arise out of and in the course of employment, applying the notional extension theory. The court ordered the employer to pay compensation to the legal heirs of the deceased under the Employees’ Compensation Act.
This decision underlines a key principle: if the journey to work is a necessary and expected part of employment, the employer’s liability can extend to such situations.
