rkn61If you are looking at the 'hair-splitting interpretation', if an employee starts from his residence for duty, the moment of his departure from house shall be considered as 'during the course of employment'. Hence you can report the matter to statutory authorities and management can help in initiating and settling his mediclaim and see that he is getting cash benefits.
From India, Aizawl
KalijanniIf an employee starts from his residence for duty, the moment of his departure from house shall be considered as 'during the course of employment' for ESI Claim. As per my understanding of Factories act:-
"It is not a reportable or industrial accident , No need to inform inspector of factories".
From India, Guntur
umakanthan53I concur with the observation of Mr.V.K.Rao in view of the entire provisions of sec. 88 of the Factories Act,1948. Though Mr.R.K.Nair's interpretation based on "the doctrine of notional extension of time and space of employment" is acceptable with reference to the time and place of the road accident outside the premises of the factory as narrated in the post for the purpose of compensation for injury arising out of employment accident, it cannot be applied to submission of notice of accident under the FA,1948 u/s 88(1), simply because of the purpose and scope of the inquiry contemplated u/s 88(2) of the Act.
From India, Salem
RAM- WORTHNoted Your Inputs. Thank you so much.
From India, Ambur
KK!HRAlthough the query stands answered, I would like to throw some light on the interpretation of the accidents covered under the EC Act 1923. Relevant part of Section 3 of the Act reads as follows:
3. Employer's liability for compensation.--(1) If personal injury is caused to an employee by accident arising out of and in the course of his employment, his employer shall be liable to pay compensation in accordance with the provisions of this Chapter:
The liability for the employer to pay compensation arises only if the accident arose out of and in the course of his employment. The notional extension theory is interpreted to say that the employment would start when the employee starts from home and extends till he returns home. But the cardinal point is whether the accident arose out of employment, in other words was the employee present at the site of accident for his employment purpose or was it in discharge of his duties. As is evident in this query, he was there like anybody else at the site and he was not discharging any of his duties there.
The celebrated judgement of Supreme Court in GENERAL MANAGER, B. E. S.T.UNDERTAKING, BOMBAY Vs. MRS. AGNES decided on 10/05/1963, Justice Subba Rao (as he then was) has propounded the notional extension theory, has clearly stressed that both the conditions, the accident arising out of and in the course of employment has to be answered in the affirmative for entitlement to compensation. The deceased P. Nanu Raman was a bus driver of the appellant corporation and after finishing the work for the day, he left the bus in the depot, boarded another bus to go to his residence and the bus met with an accident and, as a result of the injuries received in that accident, he died. It was held under the Rules, a bus driver is given the facility in his capacity as a driver to travel in any bus belonging to the undertaking, presumably, to enable him to keep up punctuality and to discharge his onereous 0bligations. It is given to him not as a grace, but is of right because efficiency of the service demands it. Therefore the right of a bus driver to travel in the bus in order to discharge his duties punctually and efficiently was a condition of his service and there was an implied obligation on his part to travel in the said buses as a part of his duty.
There are a spate of judgements following the decision of the Supreme Court in case of Regional Director, E.S.I. Corporation and Anr. v. Francis De Costa and Anr., 1997-I-LLJ-34 (SC) . The facts involved in the decision of the Supreme Court are as follows:
"One Francis De Costa, met with an accident on June 26, 1971 while he was on his way to the place of his employment, a factory at Koratty. The accident occurred at a place which was about one kilometre away to the north of the factory. The time of occurrence was 4.15 p.m. It has been stated that the duty shift of the respondent would have commenced at 4.30 p.m. The respondent was going to his place of work on bicycle. He was hit by a lorry belonging to the respondents M/s. J and P Coats (Private) Limited". On these facts, the Supreme Court has held that if an employee, on his way to the factory, i.e., the place of employment, dies in the accident at place which is one kilometre away from the place of employment, cannot be said to be caused by accident arising out of and in course of his employment.
From India, Mumbai
bijay_majumdarIrrespective of the facts, if an employee is considered for the compensation,it will be positive indication.
From India, Vadodara
Adverting to the observations of learned members, what damages or non-compliance will it cause if the accident happened outside the premises in this case not reported. Is't not prudent to report formally and conduct the enquiry, close the case by recording the facts, marking the evidences and determine compensation, if any on a/c of the injury? In any case 'in the course of employment' is an accepted 'industrial accident' under the Employees Compensation act as well, not withstanding the contents of case ref. which Mr.KK!HR cited here. Is't Ok if 'Let us err on the right side'?
From India, Bangalore
umakanthan53The primary question here is whether such an accident occurred in a public place outside the factory premises is reportable u/s 88 of the FA, 1948 because it resulted in the death of a worker while coming for his work. I would like to reiterate that it is not necessary as it cannot be linked to the question of the lack of any statutory safety measures within the precincts and premises of the factory concerned.
At the same time Mr. KK(!)HR's post just speaks about another dimension of the issue that would require the examination of the exact fact-situation of each and every such case.
From India, Salem
While endorsing the views of Learned Mr.Umakanthan and Mr.KK!HR, let me add that that the place of work of an employee includes places /routes an employee passes and repasses the area or places in going to and leaving the exact work spot or employer's premises and therefore any accident occurs this way is regarded as in the course of employmnet, However there may reasonable extension in both time and palce and a workman may be regarded as in course of employmnet even if he has not reached ( both on onward and return destination) or left the employer's premises /work place .
As regards reportability of accident, I feel that the accident may be reported to Factory inspectorate of jurisdiction which will keep the employer in good stead
From India, Chennai
Community Support and Knowledge-base on business, career and organisational prospects and issues - Register and Log In to CiteHR and post your query, download formats and be part of a fostered community of professionals.