Dear Friends,
One of our employees, while coming to duty, unfortunately, got into a road accident outside the campus. He sustained injuries and a mild fracture in his leg. Is this incident reportable to the inspector of factories or the labor commissioner? However, he is not covered under the ESI Act but is covered under medical insurance.
Since the accident occurred outside the campus, my question is whether the accident needs to be reported or not. Is the employer liable to provide compensation for this accident or not?
From India, Ambur
Acknowledge(0)
Amend(0)
One of our employees, while coming to duty, unfortunately, got into a road accident outside the campus. He sustained injuries and a mild fracture in his leg. Is this incident reportable to the inspector of factories or the labor commissioner? However, he is not covered under the ESI Act but is covered under medical insurance.
Since the accident occurred outside the campus, my question is whether the accident needs to be reported or not. Is the employer liable to provide compensation for this accident or not?
From India, Ambur
Acknowledge(0)Amend(0)
If you are looking at the 'hair-splitting interpretation', if an employee starts from his residence for duty, the moment of his departure from the house shall be considered as 'during the course of employment'. Hence, you can report the matter to statutory authorities, and management can help in initiating and settling his mediclaim and ensure that he is receiving cash benefits.
From India, Aizawl
Acknowledge(0)Amend(0)
699From India, Aizawl
Acknowledge(0)Amend(0)
If an employee starts from his residence for duty, the moment of his departure from the house shall be considered as 'during the course of employment' for ESI Claim. As per my understanding of the Factories Act: "It is not a reportable or industrial accident, so there is no need to inform the inspector of factories."
From India, Guntur
Acknowledge(0)Amend(0)
From India, Guntur
Acknowledge(0)Amend(0)
I concur with the observation of Mr. V.K. Rao in view of the entire provisions of sec. 88 of the Factories Act, 1948. Though Mr. R.K. Nair's interpretation based on "the doctrine of notional extension of time and space of employment" is acceptable with reference to the time and place of the road accident outside the premises of the factory as narrated in the post for the purpose of compensation for injury arising out of employment accident, it cannot be applied to the submission of notice of the accident under the Factories Act, 1948 u/s 88(1), simply because of the purpose and scope of the inquiry contemplated u/s 88(2) of the Act.
From India, Salem
Acknowledge(0)Amend(0)
From India, Salem
Acknowledge(0)Amend(0)
Although the query stands answered, I would like to shed some light on the interpretation of the accidents covered under the EC Act 1923. Relevant part of Section 3 of the Act reads as follows:
3. Employer's liability for compensation--(1) If personal injury is caused to an employee by an accident arising out of and in the course of his employment, his employer shall be liable to pay compensation in accordance with the provisions of this Chapter:
The liability for the employer to pay compensation arises only if the accident arose out of and in the course of his employment. The notional extension theory is interpreted to say that the employment would start when the employee starts from home and extends till he returns home. But the cardinal point is whether the accident arose out of employment; in other words, was the employee present at the site of the accident for his employment purpose, or was it in discharge of his duties. As is evident in this query, he was there like anybody else at the site, and he was not discharging any of his duties there.
The celebrated judgment of the Supreme Court in GENERAL MANAGER, B.E.S.T. UNDERTAKING, BOMBAY Vs. MRS. AGNES decided on 10/05/1963, Justice Subba Rao (as he then was) has propounded the notional extension theory, has clearly stressed that both conditions, the accident arising out of and in the course of employment, have to be answered in the affirmative for entitlement to compensation. The deceased P. Nanu Raman was a bus driver of the appellant corporation. After finishing the work for the day, he left the bus in the depot, boarded another bus to go to his residence, and the bus met with an accident. As a result of the injuries received in that accident, he died. It was held under the Rules, a bus driver is given the facility in his capacity as a driver to travel in any bus belonging to the undertaking, presumably to enable him to keep up punctuality and to discharge his onerous obligations. It is given to him not as a grace but is of right because efficiency of the service demands it. Therefore, the right of a bus driver to travel in the bus in order to discharge his duties punctually and efficiently was a condition of his service, and there was an implied obligation on his part to travel in the said buses as a part of his duty.
There are a spate of judgments following the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Regional Director, E.S.I. Corporation and Anr. v. Francis De Costa and Anr., 1997-I-LLJ-34 (SC). The facts involved in the decision of the Supreme Court are as follows: "One Francis De Costa met with an accident on June 26, 1971, while he was on his way to the place of his employment, a factory at Koratty. The accident occurred at a place which was about one kilometer away to the north of the factory. The time of occurrence was 4:15 p.m. It has been stated that the duty shift of the respondent would have commenced at 4:30 p.m. The respondent was going to his place of work on a bicycle. He was hit by a lorry belonging to the respondents M/s. J and P Coats (Private) Limited." On these facts, the Supreme Court has held that if an employee, on his way to the factory, i.e., the place of employment, dies in the accident at a place which is one kilometer away from the place of employment, it cannot be said to be caused by an accident arising out of and in the course of his employment.
From India, Mumbai
Acknowledge(0)Amend(0)
3. Employer's liability for compensation--(1) If personal injury is caused to an employee by an accident arising out of and in the course of his employment, his employer shall be liable to pay compensation in accordance with the provisions of this Chapter:
The liability for the employer to pay compensation arises only if the accident arose out of and in the course of his employment. The notional extension theory is interpreted to say that the employment would start when the employee starts from home and extends till he returns home. But the cardinal point is whether the accident arose out of employment; in other words, was the employee present at the site of the accident for his employment purpose, or was it in discharge of his duties. As is evident in this query, he was there like anybody else at the site, and he was not discharging any of his duties there.
The celebrated judgment of the Supreme Court in GENERAL MANAGER, B.E.S.T. UNDERTAKING, BOMBAY Vs. MRS. AGNES decided on 10/05/1963, Justice Subba Rao (as he then was) has propounded the notional extension theory, has clearly stressed that both conditions, the accident arising out of and in the course of employment, have to be answered in the affirmative for entitlement to compensation. The deceased P. Nanu Raman was a bus driver of the appellant corporation. After finishing the work for the day, he left the bus in the depot, boarded another bus to go to his residence, and the bus met with an accident. As a result of the injuries received in that accident, he died. It was held under the Rules, a bus driver is given the facility in his capacity as a driver to travel in any bus belonging to the undertaking, presumably to enable him to keep up punctuality and to discharge his onerous obligations. It is given to him not as a grace but is of right because efficiency of the service demands it. Therefore, the right of a bus driver to travel in the bus in order to discharge his duties punctually and efficiently was a condition of his service, and there was an implied obligation on his part to travel in the said buses as a part of his duty.
There are a spate of judgments following the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Regional Director, E.S.I. Corporation and Anr. v. Francis De Costa and Anr., 1997-I-LLJ-34 (SC). The facts involved in the decision of the Supreme Court are as follows: "One Francis De Costa met with an accident on June 26, 1971, while he was on his way to the place of his employment, a factory at Koratty. The accident occurred at a place which was about one kilometer away to the north of the factory. The time of occurrence was 4:15 p.m. It has been stated that the duty shift of the respondent would have commenced at 4:30 p.m. The respondent was going to his place of work on a bicycle. He was hit by a lorry belonging to the respondents M/s. J and P Coats (Private) Limited." On these facts, the Supreme Court has held that if an employee, on his way to the factory, i.e., the place of employment, dies in the accident at a place which is one kilometer away from the place of employment, it cannot be said to be caused by an accident arising out of and in the course of his employment.
From India, Mumbai
Acknowledge(0)Amend(0)
Irrespective of the facts, if an employee is considered for the compensation,it will be positive indication.
From India, Vadodara
Acknowledge(0)Amend(0)
From India, Vadodara
Acknowledge(0)Amend(0)
Dear colleagues,
Referring to the observations of learned members, what damages or non-compliance will it cause if the accident happened outside the premises and was not reported in this case? Is it not prudent to report formally, conduct the inquiry, close the case by recording the facts, marking the evidence, and determining compensation, if any, on account of the injury?
In any case, 'in the course of employment' is considered an 'industrial accident' under the Employees Compensation Act as well, regardless of the contents of the case reference which Mr. KK!HR cited here. Is it okay if we 'err on the right side'?
Thank you.
From India, Bangalore
Acknowledge(0)Amend(0)
Referring to the observations of learned members, what damages or non-compliance will it cause if the accident happened outside the premises and was not reported in this case? Is it not prudent to report formally, conduct the inquiry, close the case by recording the facts, marking the evidence, and determining compensation, if any, on account of the injury?
In any case, 'in the course of employment' is considered an 'industrial accident' under the Employees Compensation Act as well, regardless of the contents of the case reference which Mr. KK!HR cited here. Is it okay if we 'err on the right side'?
Thank you.
From India, Bangalore
Acknowledge(0)Amend(0)
The primary question here is whether such an accident occurred in a public place outside the factory premises is reportable under section 88 of the Factories Act, 1948 because it resulted in the death of a worker while coming for his work. I would like to reiterate that it is not necessary as it cannot be linked to the question of the lack of any statutory safety measures within the precincts and premises of the factory concerned.
At the same time, Mr. KK(!)HR's post just speaks about another dimension of the issue that would require the examination of the exact fact-situation of each and every such case.
From India, Salem
Acknowledge(0)Amend(0)
At the same time, Mr. KK(!)HR's post just speaks about another dimension of the issue that would require the examination of the exact fact-situation of each and every such case.
From India, Salem
Acknowledge(0)Amend(0)
Hi,
While endorsing the views of Learned Mr. Umakanthan and Mr. KK!HR, let me add that the place of work of an employee includes places/routes an employee passes and repasses in going to and leaving the exact work spot or employer's premises. Therefore, any accident that occurs this way is regarded as in the course of employment. However, there may be a reasonable extension in both time and place, and a workman may be regarded as in the course of employment even if he has not reached (both onward and return destinations) or left the employer's premises/workplace.
Regarding the reportability of accidents, I feel that the accident may be reported to the Factory Inspectorate of jurisdiction, which will keep the employer in good stead.
P. Senthilkumar
Email: senprithvib6@gmail.com
Phone: 9884009193
From India, Chennai
Acknowledge(0)Amend(0)
While endorsing the views of Learned Mr. Umakanthan and Mr. KK!HR, let me add that the place of work of an employee includes places/routes an employee passes and repasses in going to and leaving the exact work spot or employer's premises. Therefore, any accident that occurs this way is regarded as in the course of employment. However, there may be a reasonable extension in both time and place, and a workman may be regarded as in the course of employment even if he has not reached (both onward and return destinations) or left the employer's premises/workplace.
Regarding the reportability of accidents, I feel that the accident may be reported to the Factory Inspectorate of jurisdiction, which will keep the employer in good stead.
P. Senthilkumar
Email: senprithvib6@gmail.com
Phone: 9884009193
From India, Chennai
Acknowledge(0)Amend(0)Engage with peers to discuss and resolve work and business challenges collaboratively - share and document your knowledge. Our AI-powered platform, features real-time fact-checking, peer reviews, and an extensive historical knowledge base. - Join & Be Part Of Our Community.
ESI For road accident.pdf
Road Accident.zip