On-Duty or Not? Understanding Employee Compensation for Accidents Near Work

Please clarify what is considered as on-duty as per the Employee Compensation Act. While going home from the office, within 100 meters, I had a self-accident. Is it considered as on-duty or not?

Dear Ramakrishna, what you've asked and indicated by a factual illustration is called "the theory of notional extension of place and time of employment" adopted under the Employees Compensation Act, 1923, for the purpose of interpretation to decide the compensability of an employment accident on certain occasions. Section 3(1) of the E.C Act, 1923, fixes the employer's liability for compensation if personal injury is caused to an employee by an accident arising out of and in the course of his employment. Though the term "accident" is not defined under this Act, it is a mishap or untoward incident, not expected or designed as commonly understood. But the accident should have arisen out of and in the course of employment. In other words, there should be a CAUSAL CONNECTION between the employment and the accident.

Tests to determine compensability

The tests to determine whether any accident has arisen out of and in the course of employment are:

1. The employee was in fact employed on duties at the TIME of the accident.
2. The accident should have occurred at the PLACE of performance of his duties.
3. The immediate act which led to the accident should not be so remote from the sphere of his duties to be regarded as something foreign.

Doctrine of notional extension

The phrase "arising out of and in the course of employment" has been clarified in several judgments of the Honorable Supreme Court of India. It has been held that if there is a causal connection between the place of the accident and the place of work and the time of the accident, then compensation is payable as per the E.C Act, 1923. These interpretations have come to be known as the "Doctrine of notional extension of the workplace." The following observations of the Supreme Court in its judgment in Saurashtra Salt Manufacturing Co. v. Bai Valu Raja & Others [AIR 1958- S.C 881] would be of more help to understand the concept:

"As a rule, the employment of a workman does not commence until he has reached the place of employment and does not continue when he has left the place of employment, the journey to and from the place of employment being excluded. It is now settled, however, that this is subject to the theory of notional extension of the employer's premises so as to indicate an area which the workman passes and repasses in going to and leaving the actual place of work. There may be some reasonable extension in both the time and place, and the workman may be regarded as in the course of employment even though he had not reached or had left his employer's premises. The facts and circumstances of each case will have to be examined very carefully to determine whether the accident arose out of and in the course of the employment of a workman, keeping in view at all times this theory of notional extension of the employer's premises."

Coming to your illustration, if the individual is an "employee" as defined under section 2(1)(dd) read with Schedule II of the E.C Act, 1923, the accident has to be considered to have happened on duty.

To add to what Umakanthan Sir has explained, the legal position is that an employer is liable to pay compensation only in respect of injury suffered by an employee on account of an accident having arisen out of and in the course of employment. If the workman, of course, has exposed himself to an added peril by his own imprudent act, thereby receiving injury, he would not be entitled to compensation under the Act. An accident causing injury to the employee must arise out of and in the course of employment for the entitlement of the employee to claim compensation under the Act.

In the course of employment

"In the course of employment" means "in the course of work for which the workman is employed to do and which is incidental to it." "Arising out of employment" means "during the course of employment, injury has resulted from some risk incidental to the duties of service." Unless engaged in duty owing to the master, it is reasonable to believe the workmen would not otherwise have suffered, making him entitled to claim compensation under the Act. The simple test to be answered is whether the injured employee was there at the accident spot in the capacity of being employed.

Stringent interpretation by courts

Finding much abuse of the notional extension theory has been taking place, the courts nowadays put stringent interpretation and critically view whether the accident arose out of employment, meaning it checks whether it is the employment terms that brought the injured workmen to the accident spot.

Dear Mamta Kumari,

It applies to all the workmen covered under Schedule II of the Employee Compensation Act 1923. It excludes establishments covered under the ESI Act.

Thank you.

If you don't mind, Mr. KK! HR, a small correction: Only those employees who are covered by the ESI Act of 1948 are not entitled to compensation under the E.C. Act of 1923. However, all other employees satisfying the conditions mentioned above.