Accident While Coming To Duty - Doc Download

Thank you, Nair.

Transportation provided by the employer is a different scenario. In fact, this was one of the reasons why companies decided to provide their transportation facilities to employees initially. This trend significantly grew from 2004 onwards with the development of transnational, international, and multinational companies. It was observed that it helped in various ways, such as time management, increased production efficiency, safety, and security. This was due to reasons like managing attendance, coordinating work shifts, engaging in various work activities, and accommodating a large number of employees.

Please let me know if further clarification is needed.

Dear all,

Now the question that comes to my mind is that in Mumbai, there are millions of people traveling daily to and from their work stations. Many accidents occur, such as train/bus accidents, bomb incidents, etc. In this case, is the employer obligated to provide compensation?

Raj

Well, that's a good question. An employee can claim compensation if they can prove that the incident occurred "beyond their control." This means the employee had no prior knowledge of the event and no means of avoiding it, and it was entirely not due to the employee's fault or negligence, particularly in the case of individual accidents.

In the scenario of public accidents, the employer is not held liable as it falls under a different category. For example, in cases involving railways, the railway authority would be responsible, and in incidents like bomb blasts, the government would bear the responsibility. The employer is not solely responsible for providing compensation. However, the employee may still be able to claim through their insurance policy, especially if the HR policy allows for such generosity.

Regarding your specific situation, as an employee who was required to stay beyond the usual working hours by your employer and a railway accident occurred while you were on your way home, the question of liability arises. Are you entitled to hold your employer responsible because they kept you at work longer than usual, resulting in you being caught up in the accident on your way home? It's something worth considering.

I hope this clarifies the situation for you.

It is completely based on whether the employee is under ESI coverage or not. If he is covered, there is no need for the employer to pay the compensation. If not, it works as per the Workmen's Compensation Act.

Dear BSSV and others,

I am of the opinion that although there is notional extension regarding 'arising during the course of duty', it fails the test of arising out of duty. Where the employee was at the place of the accident, not for discharging the duties but in his personal capacity, there cannot be any liability on the employer.

Regards,
KK

Dear Raj,

Accidents cannot be classified as accidents "beyond control" and accidents "within control." An event is called an accident only when it happens all of a sudden and without the knowledge and beyond the power of the victim. An event to be an accident, it shall be unpredictable. Therefore, an accident will always be "beyond the control" of the victim. Therefore, to decide the entitlement of the employee within the four corners of the Employee Compensation Act, what is required to be seen is whether the accident arose out of and in the course of employment even by the application of the principle of notional extension and whether the employee has contributed to the accident, i.e., negligent or whether he could have avoided it, had been careful. Even if the employer detained him beyond his scheduled working hours and thereafter he met with an accident on his way home, his entitlement to compensation will still be disputable, assuming that the employer offered him his transport to drop him at home or which he normally takes daily but he refused and chose to go on his own by a local train which met with an accident. Thus, there will be innumerable intervening factors that can affect the employee's rights to compensation. Each case needs to be judged on its merits, and there cannot be one general answer since the Act does not provide a general solution.

B. Saikumar

HR & Labour Law Advisor

Mumbai

Yeah, we have already discussed that, you may refer to the previous discussions (also illustrated)......

Dear Saikumar,

Accidents cannot be classified as accidents "beyond control" and accidents "within control". An event is called an accident only when it happens all of a sudden and without the knowledge and beyond the power of the victim. An event to be an accident shall be unpredictable. Therefore, an accident will always be "beyond the control" of the victim. To decide the entitlement of the employee within the four corners of the Employee Compensation Act, what is required to be seen is whether the accident arose out of and in the course of employment even by the application of the principle of notional extension and whether the employee has contributed to the accident, i.e., negligent or whether he could have avoided it, had he been careful. Even if the employer detained him beyond his scheduled working hours and thereafter he met with an accident on his way home, his entitlement to compensation will still be disputable, assuming that the employer offered him his transport to drop him at home or which he normally takes daily but he refused and chose to go on his own by a local train which met with an accident. Thus there will be innumerable intervening factors that can affect the employee's rights to compensation. Each case needs to be judged on its merits, and there cannot be one general answer since the Act does not provide a general solution.

B. Saikumar
HR & Labour Law Advisor
Mumbai

Dear Saikumar,

"Beyond the control" doesn't mean you could have had control over the event; it implies that you must prove it an accident without your contribution to it (Contributory negligence, we call it in legal terms). It's discussed already, in fact, in layman language. And yeah, each case differs from its facts and circumstances and has to be dealt with accordingly. Factual and legal interpretations differ, as you have clearly said that the Act does not provide exact solutions.

Thank you

It has nothing to do with the ESI coverage. Mr. Saikumar has discussed it well; you may refer to that. If the official duty is proved for which the employee was delayed, he may claim his compensation. When he can claim his compensation, then his insurance too. These kinds of cases usually depend on the 'established facts and circumstances'.

Dear Raj,

The Workmen's Compensation Act clearly holds the employer liable for compensation to the employee who met with the accident if the accident has arisen during the course and arising out of employment. Accordingly, there is a notional extension of the premises of the employer en route to the employee's house from his workplace by the direct and usual route. The ESI judgment will also support this contention.

Regards,

S.K. Johri