Dear Sir, Greeting's of the day!!! Our one employee 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
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
Since your employee is coming to duty from his residence on a 2-wheeler, it can establish that your employee was on duty / notional extension. This accident is definitely out of and in the course of employment and therefore you - employer - is liable to pay him compensation under the EC Act when his injury resulted in total or partial disablement for a period exceeding three days.
You - employer - is liable to meet with medical expenses of your employee without any limit.
From India, Aizawl
584You - employer - is liable to meet with medical expenses of your employee without any limit.
From India, Aizawl
Ref my post above. Please treat this answer as
revised reply
Since your employee is coming to duty from his residence on a 2-wheeler, it can establish that your employee was on duty / notional extension. This accident is definitely out of and in the course of employment and therefore you - employer - is liable to pay him compensation under the EC Act when his injury resulted in total or partial disablement for a period exceeding three days.
You - employer - is liable to meet with medical expenses of your employee without any limit.
--
From India, Aizawl
revised reply
Since your employee is coming to duty from his residence on a 2-wheeler, it can establish that your employee was on duty / notional extension. This accident is definitely out of and in the course of employment and therefore you - employer - is liable to pay him compensation under the EC Act when his injury resulted in total or partial disablement for a period exceeding three days.
You - employer - is liable to meet with medical expenses of your employee without any limit.
--
From India, Aizawl
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
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
Find answers from people who have previously dealt with business and work issues similar to yours - Please Register and Log In to CiteHR and post your query.
Compensation policy.doc
COMPENSATION POLICY(Bilingua l)_v 1.1.pdf