As a general principle and a matter of law, the liability of an employer arises when the employee sustains injuries in an accident which arises out of and in the course of his employment. However, a question arises as to whether the travel to and from the workplace shall be considered to come under the ambit of “out of and in the course of employment.”
In the case of Regional Director, E.S.I. Corporation and Anr. v. Francis De Costa and Anr. (1996)[1], the employee met with an accident while on his way to work to report for his 4:30 pm shift. The fatal incident occurred at 4:15 pm wherein the employee was hit by a lorry while travelling on his cycle. The Supreme Court laid down three principles that had to be proved for an employee to succeed in such a claim: (1) there was an accident, (2) the accident had a causal connection with the employment and (3) the accident must have been suffered in course of employment.”
What arises "in the course of the employment is to be distinguished from what arises "out of the employment." The former words relate to time conditioned by reference to the man's service, the latter to causality. Not every accident which occurs to a man during the time when he is on his employment, that is directly or indirectly engaged on what he is employed to do, gives a claim to compensation unless it also arises out of the employment.
This principle has been reiterated by various Courts over the course of many years. Recently, the Bombay High Court in New India Assurance Company Ltd. v. Shaikh Farzana and Ors.(2022)[2], has applied the same rationale and held that an employee’s return home after duty hours, accident and resultant death had no nexus with his employment and thus, could not be said to have suffered in the course of employment.
Hence, an injury arising from an accident while travelling to or from the place of employment in order to be present for duty will not be considered for compensation claims by the employee.
[1]MANU/SC/0117/1997
[2]MANU/MH/0658/2022