Dear Sir,
Greetings of the day!
One of our employees got injured while coming on duty from his residence due to a slip of his two-wheeler on the road. The employee has to travel daily around 18 KM from his residence to the factory. We have Workmen's Compensation Policy as required under the Employee's Compensation Act, 1923.
Sir, kindly advise us whether the accident that occurred outside of the company premises will be covered under the said policy or not.
Thanks & Regards
From India, Gandhidham
Acknowledge(0)
Amend(0)
Greetings of the day!
One of our employees got injured while coming on duty from his residence due to a slip of his two-wheeler on the road. The employee has to travel daily around 18 KM from his residence to the factory. We have Workmen's Compensation Policy as required under the Employee's Compensation Act, 1923.
Sir, kindly advise us whether the accident that occurred outside of the company premises will be covered under the said policy or not.
Thanks & Regards
From India, Gandhidham
Acknowledge(0)Amend(0)
Since your employee is commuting to work from his residence on a 2-wheeler, it can be established that your employee was on duty or in a notional extension. This accident is clearly within the scope of employment, and therefore, as the employer, you are liable to pay compensation under the EC Act if his injury results in total or partial disablement for a period exceeding three days.
As the employer, you are also responsible for covering the medical expenses of your employee without any limit.
From India, Aizawl
Acknowledge(0)Amend(0)
699As the employer, you are also responsible for covering the medical expenses of your employee without any limit.
From India, Aizawl
Acknowledge(0)Amend(0)
Referring to my previous post, please consider this response as a revised reply.
Since your employee commutes to work on a 2-wheeler from their residence, it can be inferred that the employee was on duty or within a notional extension of duty. Therefore, this accident falls within the scope of employment, making you, the employer, liable to provide compensation under the Employees' Compensation Act if the injury results in total or partial disablement lasting more than three days.
As the employer, you are also responsible for covering your employee's medical expenses without any limit.
From India, Aizawl
Acknowledge(0)Amend(0)
Since your employee commutes to work on a 2-wheeler from their residence, it can be inferred that the employee was on duty or within a notional extension of duty. Therefore, this accident falls within the scope of employment, making you, the employer, liable to provide compensation under the Employees' Compensation Act if the injury results in total or partial disablement lasting more than three days.
As the employer, you are also responsible for covering your employee's medical expenses without any limit.
From India, Aizawl
Acknowledge(0)Amend(0)
There has been varying interpretations and an entire area of law has developed out of the phrase "arising out of and in the course of employment" due to the judicial view taken by the Supreme Court and the High Courts. The phrase refers to the causal nexus between the employment and the accident referred to and both the factors, arising out of employment and in the course of employment have to be answered in the affirmative. “In the course of employment” means that the employee is actually on the job at the time of accident and the notional extension theory allows spatial expansion to include the journey period to and from the resident. But "to arise out of the employment" there has to be a link established between the accident and the employment. It would depend on whether the injured employee was at the accident discharging any duty assigned to him or he was there just like any other person who happens to be there. Generally speaking, employees that are injured either going to or coming from work are not entitled to compensation under the Employee Compensation Act 1923. There can be exceptions to this general rule that if the employee was travelling by the employer provided transport arrangement or there is a specific term in the contract of service to adopt a particular means of conveyance and the accident was thereon then the EC Act applies. Similarly an accident happening while on tour is also covered.
Applying the 'the going and coming rule' in the facts narrated, it can be said that in this case the travel from and to the residence of the employee cannot be treated as accident covered under the EC Act as the employee was not discharging any duty assigned to him when the accident happened. The employee was driving his vehicle and slipping on the public road resulting in the accident cannot be related to employment and is not covered. There is a whole lot of case law supporting the above conclusion.
From India, Mumbai
Acknowledge(0)Amend(0)
Applying the 'the going and coming rule' in the facts narrated, it can be said that in this case the travel from and to the residence of the employee cannot be treated as accident covered under the EC Act as the employee was not discharging any duty assigned to him when the accident happened. The employee was driving his vehicle and slipping on the public road resulting in the accident cannot be related to employment and is not covered. There is a whole lot of case law supporting the above conclusion.
From India, Mumbai
Acknowledge(0)Amend(0)Looking for something specific? - Join & Be Part Of Our Community and get connected with the right people who can help. Our AI-powered platform provides real-time fact-checking, peer-reviewed insights, and a vast historical knowledge base to support your search.