A Night Watchman Commutes At 3 AM Not For Pleasure, But For Duty: Supreme Court Declares Commute Accident As Employment Injury

"The Road To Work Is Not Personal When Compelled By Employment": In a significant development for labour jurisprudence, the Supreme Court of India on 28th July 2025, in the case of Daivshala & Others v. Oriental Insurance Company Ltd. & Another, reinstated compensation to the family of a deceased watchman who died in a motorcycle accident while commuting to work at 3 AM. The Court ruled that such an accident, though occurring outside the workplace, had a clear nexus with employment and thus “arose out of and in the course of employment” under Section 3 of the Employees’ Compensation Act, 1923.

Reversing the Bombay High Court’s judgment, the Court held:

“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.”

In doing so, the Court not only reaffirmed the doctrine of notional extension but also harmonised its interpretation with recent legislative developments under the Employees’ State Insurance Act, 1948 (ESI Act), marking a clear shift in favour of worker protection during commutes.

Shahu Sampatrao Jadhavar, employed as a watchman by a sugar factory, had his duty scheduled from 3 AM to 11 AM. On 22nd April 2003, he left home on a motorcycle to report for work. Tragically, about 5 kilometres from the workplace, he met with a fatal road accident, leaving behind his widow, four children, and mother.

A claim was filed under the Employees’ Compensation Act. The Workmen’s Compensation Commissioner ruled in favour of the family, directing payment of ₹3,26,140 with interest, while imposing a penalty on the employer. However, the Bombay High Court, citing the Supreme Court’s earlier decision in Francis De Costa v. ESI Corporation, held that the accident did not occur “in the course of employment” and reversed the award.

The deceased’s family challenged the High Court’s ruling before the Supreme Court.

 “Employment Doesn't Begin Only At The Factory Gate”

The core legal question before the Court was whether an employee commuting to work—especially at an early hour dictated by the job—is still within the scope of employment.

The Court rejected the narrow approach of the High Court and adopted a more realistic, welfare-oriented interpretation. Referring to earlier decisions and legislative trends, the Court emphasized that:

“The peril which he faced was not something personal but incidental to his employment.”

The Court invoked the doctrine of notional extension, a well-recognized principle that extends the boundaries of the workplace to include reasonable areas and periods leading to and from the place of work. Recalling General Manager, BEST Undertaking v. Agnes, the Court observed:

“There is a notional extension of both the entry and exit by time and space. The scope of such extension must necessarily depend on the circumstances of a given case.”

Francis De Costa Overruled by Statutory Development: Section 51E Gives New Direction

The High Court had relied heavily on the 1996 judgment in Francis De Costa, where the Court had ruled that an accident during a commute could not be deemed to arise out of employment unless it had a direct causal connection.

However, the Supreme Court clarified that this principle no longer holds field after the insertion of Section 51E in the ESI Act with effect from 1 June 2010. The newly introduced provision reads:

“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, shall be deemed to have arisen out of and in the course of employment if nexus… is established.”

Importantly, the Court held that Section 51E is not merely prospective, but declaratory and clarificatory in nature, and therefore has retrospective application.

“It is beyond doubt that Section 51E was enacted to clarify and put beyond doubt the meaning of the phrase ‘accident arising out of and in the course of employment’... and must be held to operate retrospectively.”

Two Social Welfare Laws, One Harmonised Interpretation

The Supreme Court then addressed whether the language and principles of the ESI Act could inform the interpretation of the Employees’ Compensation Act. Noting that both statutes serve the same remedial and protective purpose, the Court held:

“The EC Act and the ESI Act are cognate legislations—statutes in pari materia—and serve the same social welfare objective of protecting employees against accidents and injuries.”

By applying the interpretive principle of statutes in pari materia, the Court held that the phrase “arising out of and in the course of employment” must receive a uniform and liberal interpretation under both laws.

“Where statutes in pari materia serve a common object, it is permissible for a court of law to ascertain the meaning of the provision in one enactment by comparing its language with the other.”

"The Journey To Work Was Part Of His Job"

Ultimately, the Supreme Court concluded that Shahu Sampatrao Jadhavar was not simply on a personal journey, but on a compelled route to fulfill his duties as a night watchman, and thus the accident was directly linked to his employment.

“A worker’s journey to work, especially one compelled by duty at 3 AM, is not a private affair but a necessary part of his employment.”

Accordingly, the Court allowed the appeal, set aside the High Court’s judgment, and restored the Commissioner’s award, bringing justice to the deceased’s family after a long legal battle.

This judgment is a landmark reaffirmation of the Supreme Court’s commitment to interpreting welfare legislation with compassion and purpose. It ensures that employees who meet with accidents while obeying the demands of their job—even en route—are not left without remedy, and their families are not left without support.

Date of Decision: 28 July 2025