New Delhi: The Supreme Court on Tuesday said the phrase “accident arising out of and in the course of his employment” in a provision of the Employees’ Compensation Act would include accidents occurring while commuting between the residence and the place of duty.
The court noted that there is “considerable doubt and ambiguity” surrounding this phrase in section 3 of the Act insofar as cases concerning accidents occurring to employees while proceeding to work and vice versa.
A bench of Justices Manoj Misra and K V Viswanathan noted that depending on facts, different rulings have interpreted this differently.
Section 3 of the Employees’ Compensation (EC) Act, 1923 deals with the employer’s liability for compensation.
“We interpret the phrase ‘accident arising out of and in the course of his employment’ occurring in section 3 of the EC Act to include an accident occurring to an employee while commuting from his residence to the place of employment for duty or from the place of employment to his residence after performing duty, provided the nexus between the circumstances, time and place in which the accident occurred and the employment is established,” the bench said.
The top court delivered its verdict on an appeal challenging a December 2011 Bombay High Court order.
The high court had set aside an order of the Commissioner for Workmen’s Compensation and Civil Judge, Osmanabad, which had awarded Rs 3,26,140, along with interest, to the family members of a victim who died in an accident while he was on his way to report for duty.
The award was ordered in a claim filed under the EC Act.
In its verdict, the apex court noted that the deceased was employed as a watchman in a sugar factory and his duty hours were from 3 am to 11 am on April 22, 2003, the day of the accident.
The bench said it was undisputed that he was proceeding to his place of duty when the accident occurred at a spot located around five kilometres from the workplace.
“In view of the above, considering that the deceased was a night watchman and was dutifully proceeding to his workplace to be well on time, there was a clear nexus between the circumstances, time and place in which the accident occurred and his employment as watchman,” the bench said.
It said as the accident had clearly arisen out of and in the course of employment, the Commissioner for Workmen’s Compensation and Civil Judge was justified in ordering the claim under the Act.
While allowing the appeal, the bench set aside the high court order and restored the judgment of the Commissioner for Workmen’s Compensation and Civil Judge.