I. Introduction

A job gives a person a way to earn a living, but it can also put that person in danger — machines, electricity, chemicals, vehicles, heights, heavy tools, tiring repetitive work and generally unsafe conditions. When something goes wrong, the worker may face medical bills, lost wages, temporary or permanent disability or, in the worst case, death. This is not only a personal problem for the worker. It is a social problem too, because the people who depend on the worker’s income are affected as well.

Employment injury law tries to spread this risk in a fair way through statutory protection in India. This area of law used to be spread across different laws, mainly the Employees’ Compensation Act and the Employees’ State Insurance Act, 1948. [3] [4]

The Code on Social Security, 2020, tries to bring several of these social security laws together into one code. [1] It keeps separate chapters for the ESI scheme and for employees’ compensation, and which chapter actually applies to a person depends on the coverage rule in that chapter.

The words “arising out of and in the course of employment” sit right at the centre of the whole area of law. These words decide where the line is between an injury connected to the work and an accident that happens to a person who also happens to have a job. This phrase covers more than “the exact task assigned.” It can also cover reasonable things done alongside work, moving around the workplace, helping in an emergency and certain journeys. But it does not make the employer an insurer for exactly everything that happens in a worker’s life.

This paper studies this principle as it stands under the Code on Social Security, 2020, using the statute as the main source and older case law mostly as background support. I have kept this a doctrinal

study rather than a numerical one. I am not trying to give numbers on how many claims actually succeed or fail, and I have not tried to cover every single reported decision on employment injury, since that would need a much longer paper than this one.

II. Research Methodology

This paper follows a doctrinal legal research method. The main primary sources used are the Code on Social Security, 2020, the relevant Government notification, earlier social security legislation and judicial decisions dealing with employment injury and the doctrine of “arising out of and in the course of employment.” Secondary material has been used mainly to understand the background and practical side of the issue. The study is analytical rather than statistical. It does not attempt to measure how many employment injury claims succeed or fail, or to examine every decision on the subject. The provisions of the Code are read together with the earlier case law to understand how the two limbs of the doctrine operate in situations such as workplace accidents, commuting, emergencies, employer-arranged transport and occupational disease. The purpose is to identify the legal connection required for an employment injury and the practical factors that may help in deciding disputed claims.

III. Objectives And Research Questions

This study has a few simple aims:

1. explain the two parts of the principle;
2. point out the important sections of the Code on Social Security, 2020;
3. look at how the law treats accidents during work, emergencies, commuting and employer-arranged transport;
4. look at what happens when an employee breaks a rule, is drunk, or removes safety devices;
5. explain how employment injury is connected with the right to compensation; and
6. give some practical suggestions for employers, employees and the authorities who decide these cases.

The main questions of this paper are these: What actually makes an accident “connected enough” with employment? Does an accident during the daily journey automatically count? What should happen when a worker ignores a safety instruction? Does the employer’s liability depend on proving neglect? And what kind of records and evidence actually matter when a claim is disputed?

IV. Meaning Of “Employment Injury”

Section 2(28) of the Code defines “employment injury” as a personal injury caused to an employee by an accident or by an occupational disease, “arising out of and in the course of employment”. [1] This wording matters because it connects the injury to the employment relationship, not simply to the fact that someone happened to be an employee at that time.

It also recognises two kinds of harm — an injury from a sudden accident and an injury that develops from an occupational disease.

The definition works a little differently depending on which chapter of the Code applies. Under the ESI chapter, it applies to an insured or insurable employee, along with the applicable rules set out in the Code. Under the Employees’ Compensation chapter, the same idea of “arising out of and in the course of employment” applies, and it does not matter whether the accident happened inside or outside India, subject to the statutory conditions. So the exact benefit available really depends on which chapter, coverage and conditions apply to that particular worker.

“Personal injury” here is not limited to visible physical harm. It can also involve loss of earning capacity, whether temporary or permanent. A small-looking accident can sometimes cause a long period of disability, while a serious-looking one might end quickly. That is why the Code separates different outcomes for compensation purposes — death, permanent total disablement, permanent partial disablement and temporary disablement.

V. The Two Limbs Of The Doctrine

“Arising Out Of Employment”

This phrase asks for a link — either a cause-and-effect link or at least an indirect one — between the job and the accident. The injury needs to come from a risk connected to the work and the workplace, the employer’s business, or something done for the employer. This connection does not always need proof that the employer was careless. A job can simply expose a person to risks that come naturally with that kind of work.

For instance, getting hurt while running a machine, loading goods and handling chemicals, driving the employer’s vehicle, fixing equipment, or carrying out an instruction from a supervisor — all of these usually have a strong link with the employment. The same cannot be said so easily for something that happens because of a purely private matter with no connection to the job at all.

This causal link can be direct or indirect. A worker may get hurt while walking through a factory, replying to a supervisor’s call, fetching a tool, using a facility that is reasonably tied to work, or helping a co-worker. The real question each time is whether the activity was a normal or reasonable part of the job.

“In The Course Of Employment”

This second phrase is mainly about time, place and situation. It usually covers the period when the employee is doing allocated work or is under the employer’s authority. It can also cover reasonable breaks, moving around the workplace, authorised rest periods and small activities that go along with doing the job.

This is not limited to the exact minute a person is generating outputs. Employment is an ongoing relationship and workers regularly move between sections, go to meetings, collect tools and use shared facilities, or respond when something urgent happens. A very narrow view that only looks at where the employee was standing at their workstation would ignore how real workplaces actually function.

The Two Limbs Read Together

These two limbs are separate ideas but they work together. An accident can happen during working hours and still not “arise out of” employment if the worker was doing something entirely personal at that moment. On the other hand, an accident might have some connection with work but happen at a time or place too far removed to count as “in the course of” employment. Because of this, courts usually look at the whole picture: the purpose of the activity, how much control the employer had, the place, the timing, the route taken and the kind of risk involved.

VI. Statutory Framework Under The Code

The Code on Social Security, 2020, pulls together several central social security laws into one structure. [1] It keeps a chapter for the Employees’ State Insurance Corporation and a separate chapter for employees’ compensation. It also has rules on reporting fatal accidents and serious injuries, employer liability, how compensation is worked out, payment timelines, what happens on default, distribution of the amount, notice requirements and claims.

The Code was passeded in 2020, but it came into force through later notifications. The Ministry of Labour and Employment notified through S.O. 5319(E) dated 21 November 2025 that the listed provisions of the Code, including the employment injury and compensation-related provisions, came into force from that date. [2] Because the exact rules, schemes and administrative details can change, anyone relying on a particular provision in practice should check the latest official notification before doing so.

Presumption Under Section 34

Section 34 says that, for the relevant chapter, if an accident happens in the course of an employee’s employment, it will be presumed, unless there is evidence to the contrary, that it also arose out of that employment. [1]

This is a rebuttable presumption. It helps a worker who can show that the accident happened during work but who might struggle to prove the exact cause-and-effect connection.

This presumption does not remove the need to prove the basic facts first. The worker still has to show that an accident actually happened and that it happened during the course of employment. Only after that is shown does the law presume the employment connection, unless the employer can show otherwise — for example, that the event was entirely personal and deliberate, happened away from the workplace, or was otherwise unconnected to the job.

Emergency And Rescue Situations

Section 34 also deals with accidents happening in or near the premises where the employee works for the employer’s trade or business. If the employee responds to a real or believed emergency by rescuing or helping someone in danger or trying to stop or reduce serious damage to property, the accident is treated as “arising out of and in the course of employment”. [1]

It is understandable if we accept how an actual workplace emergency develops. Workers often have to respond to a fire, chemical leak, machine failure, structural problem or flooding, and these events do not wait until they are asked to take action or until someone gives them formal permission. The law recognises that this sort of action is related to the employer’s business, and the rule encourages people to act when an emergency happens instead of standing back because they fear that they may lose their legal protection.

Commuting Accidents

Section 34 further says that an accident during the commute from home to work, or from work back home, will be treated as “arising out of and in the course of employment” if there is a nexus between the circumstances, time and place of the accident and the employment. [1]

The word “nexus” matters a lot here. It does not mean that every accident on every commute is automatically compensable. Relevant facts include the usual route taken and the time of travel, the worker’s duty schedule and the reason for the journey, and whether there was any major deviation and why. A small, reasonable detour is treated quite differently from a big detour made for a purely private reason.

Employer-Provided Transport

Section 34 also covers an accident while an employee, with the employer’s express or implied permission, travels as a passenger in a vehicle to or from work. [1]

vehicle is run by, or on behalf of, the employer, or is arranged with the employer, and is not simply an ordinary public transport service. Under the Code, “vehicle” even includes a vessel and an aircraft.

This matters a lot in practice — think factories, mines, construction sites, hospitals, logistics companies and remote work sites. When the employer arranges the transport, the employment connection tends to be stronger than with an ordinary public commute. Useful evidence here can include transport contracts and pick-up schedules, duty rosters and records of permission given, vehicle logs, route details and statements from co-workers.

Breach Of Law, Orders Or Instructions

Section 35 deals with accidents that happen while an employee is breaking a law, an employer’s order, or is acting without instructions. [1] Even then, the accident can still count as arising out of and in the course of employment if it would otherwise have done so, and the act was done for the purpose of, and in connection with, the employer’s business.

This provision separates work-related disobedience from purely personal misconduct. A worker who takes an unauthorised but still work-related step can remain protected, because the action is still tied to the job. But a worker who drops the work purpose entirely and does something personal cannot rely on this rule simply because they were on the employer’s premises at the time.

Occupational Disease

Section 36 deals with occupational diseases listed in the Third Schedule. [1] If an employee working in a job listed in that Schedule contracts a disease that is peculiar to that job, the disease is treated as an employment injury unless proved otherwise. The exact terms differ depending on which part of the Schedule applies and may include minimum periods of employment or exposure.

Occupational disease claims are usually more difficult than sudden accident claims because the harm develops slowly over time. Medical reports and a record of exposure, how long the person worked there, the working conditions, the protective gear used, the actual job duties and the nature of the disease can all matter. The legal question, in the end, is whether the disease fits the statutory scheme and whether the required employment connection can be shown.

VII. Employer’s Liability For Compensation

The employees’ compensation chapter says that where an employee suffers personal injury from an accident, or from an occupational disease listed in the Third Schedule, arising out of and in the course

of employment, the employer must pay compensation as set out in that chapter. [1] So the liability itself is triggered by the employment injury and the conditions in the Code, not by proving fault in the ordinary sense.

The Code also builds in some limits and exceptions. For example, an employer is not liable for an injury that does not lead to total or partial disablement for more than three days. There are also restrictions for certain injuries — ones that do not cause death or permanent total disablement — where the accident is directly caused by intoxication, deliberate disobedience of a clear safety order or rule, or the deliberate removal or disregard of a safety guard or device that the employee knew about.

These exceptions should not be read too broadly. They do not mean that any minor rule-breaking automatically kills a claim. The statute is talking about wilful conduct, direct cause and the specific type of injury involved. Death and permanent total disablement are treated with particular seriousness under the scheme, so the actual facts, the medical outcome and the precise statutory wording all need to be looked at carefully before reaching a conclusion.

Compensation Is Not The Same As Damages For Negligence

A claim under this kind of social security or employees’ compensation scheme is quite different from an ordinary civil negligence claim. In a negligence case, the person suing generally has to prove duty, breach, causation and loss. Under a statutory employment-injury scheme, the main question is usually whether the injury fits the statutory definition and whether the required conditions are met — the worker does not have to prove negligence in the same way.

That is really the social-welfare idea behind this kind of legislation. Even where an employer has taken reasonable precautions, industrial work can still carry risk. A system based purely on proving fault could leave genuinely injured workers waiting without protection. That said, employers still carry duties under separate safety and health legislation, and unsafe practices can still lead to other regulatory, civil or even criminal consequences.

Forms Of Compensation

How much compensation is paid depends on a statutory formula and on what kind of injury resulted. Relevant factors usually include monthly wages, age, the type of disablement and the applicable statutory factor. The Code provides for compensation in cases of death, permanent total disablement, permanent partial disablement and temporary disablement. The actual calculation should always be based on the current statutory text and rules, not on some rough estimate.

Compensation has to be paid when it becomes due, and the Code lays down consequences for default. It also has rules on distributing compensation, giving notice and filing claims. In death cases, the process usually involves the dependants and whichever authority is responsible for deciding or distributing the amount. Employers should not delay reporting or paying compensation just because an internal inquiry is still going on, once the statutory obligation has already arisen.

VIII. Judicial Guidance From Earlier Law

Even though the Code is the main text now, it still helps to understand how courts read similar language under the older laws. These earlier cases remain useful for understanding causal connection,

course of employment, and the limits on commuting claims, though the current statutory wording is what ultimately controls.

Saurashtra Salt Manufacturing Co. v. Bai Valu Raja

In Saurashtra Salt Manufacturing Co. v. Bai Valu Raja, the Supreme Court looked at the link between employment and travel to work. [5] This case is usually cited for the idea that employment does not automatically stretch to cover every part of a worker’s journey between home and work, unless the facts show some special connection or obligation. It shows why the employment link has to actually be examined, not simply assumed.

Mackinnon Mackenzie & Co. (P) Ltd. v. Ibrahim Mahommed Issak

In Mackinnon Mackenzie & Co. (P) Ltd. v. Ibrahim Mahommed Issak, the Supreme Court explained why a causal relationship between the accident and the employment matters. [6] The injury has to come from a risk that is part of the job — it is not enough that the injured person simply happened to be employed at the time. This reasoning is still useful for telling apart an employment risk from a purely private risk.

Regional Director, ESI Corporation v. Francis De Costa

In Regional Director, ESI Corporation v. Francis De Costa, the Supreme Court dealt with employment injury specifically in the context of a commuting accident. [7] Even though social security legislation exists to help workers, the Court made it fairly clear that this purpose alone cannot substitute for an actual legal connection between the accident and the employment — sympathy for the worker only goes so far.

Read together, these three cases don’t really pull in just one direction. Courts should not be overly technical about it — for example, refusing a claim only because the worker wasn’t standing at the exact workstation — but at the same time, the law shouldn’t be stretched so far that any accident during a private trip suddenly turns into an employment matter.

IX. Evidence And Procedure In Accident Claims

Employment-injury disputes are usually decided on the strength of evidence. Useful material can include:

• the accident report,
• attendance register,
• duty roster,
• wage records,
• medical records,
• witness statements,
• CCTV footage where lawfully available,
• maintenance records for machinery,
• safety-training records,
• transport records,
• employment contracts, and
• communication between supervisors and workers.

An employee should report the accident as soon as reasonably possible and get medical help. A delay in reporting can raise questions about causation, but a delay by itself should not automatically wreck a genuine claim. The surrounding facts should be looked at, including fear of dismissal, lack of awareness, how serious the symptoms seemed at first, and whether there was even an easy way to report the accident.

Employers, on their side, should preserve evidence and run a fair investigation. This kind of inquiry should record the time, place, people present, the work being done, equipment involved, safety measures in place, witnesses, medical treatment given and the immediate cause. The point of this is not just to defend against liability; it should also help stop the same thing from happening again.

In contract-labour situations, records about the principal employer, the contractor, wage payments, supervision, work allocation, attendance, and safety training all become important. The Code’s

definition of “employer” includes a contractor in the relevant statutory sense. [1] So the actual legal position needs to be worked out from the real working arrangement and the relevant provisions, not simply from whatever label is written on the worker’s contract.

X. Practical Problems

Boundary Between Work And Personal Activity

The hardest cases usually involve mixed-purpose activities — a worker doing a work task while also handling a personal matter at the same time. The decision-maker should look at the dominant purpose of the activity, how long the deviation lasted, whether the employer knew about it, where it happened, and whether the worker still stayed within a reasonably work-related activity.

Commuting And Deviations

Commuting disputes need close attention to the normal route, the timing, duty hours, the transport arrangement, and the reason for any deviation. A short stop that does not really interrupt the journey is treated differently from a long detour made for a private reason. There is no fixed formula here — it always comes down to the actual facts.

Safety Instructions

Safety rules need to be clear, actually communicated, and realistic to follow. Employers should give training in a language the workers understand, and should make sure protective gear and safety guards are actually available. A rule that exists only on paper, and was never properly communicated, or that the work system made impossible to follow, cannot really be treated as an effective instruction.

Informal And Changing Work Arrangements

A lot of modern work now involves contractors, fixed-term staff, remote work, platform-based jobs and employer-arranged transport. The legal analysis has to identify the right statutory chapter, the worker’s actual status, the kind of control involved and the applicable scheme. Just because a work arrangement is complicated does not mean a worker should be left without clear information about their coverage.

Occupational Disease And Proof

Diseases that develop slowly need cooperation between doctors, employers and the authorities. Exposure records, health checks, workplace measurements, and information on protective equipment can all help decide whether a disease is really occupational. Employers should keep such records, and employees should be told clearly how medical reporting works.

XI. Analysis And Recommendations

In practice, this doctrine is easier to apply if it is approached in some kind of order rather than jumping straight to a conclusion. It helps to start with the employment relationship itself and the worker’s status under the relevant chapter, then check whether an accident or disease actually happened and what it did to the worker medically. From there, the time, place and surrounding circumstances need a close look, along with the actual activity being performed at that moment — was it assigned, authorised, incidental, or at least reasonably connected to the employer’s business? Only

once that groundwork is done should any statutory presumption or deeming rule come into play, and only at the end is it worth weighing things like personal deviation, intoxication, wilful disobedience or tampering with a safety device — these only really matter once the basic employment connection is already fairly clear.

Distinguishing Employment Injury From An Ordinary Accident

Distinguishing employment injury from an ordinary accident. It is not enough that a person was simply an employee at the time something happened. A person can be “an employee” for the whole day, but that does not mean every single thing they do during that day is connected with the job. This distinction matters because compensation law allocates responsibility for work-related risk; it is not meant to turn the employment relationship into a general accident-insurance policy for the worker’s whole life. The best place to start is with the activity the person was doing right before the accident.

the person was doing right before the accident. If they were running a machine, carrying goods, in a meeting, travelling under an employer arrangement, following an instruction, or helping during an emergency, the connection is usually clear enough. If they were in a private argument, doing personal shopping, or on an unrelated errand, the claim needs a much closer look. The location alone does not decide it a private act can happen inside the factory, and a work-related act can happen outside it. What really matters is the purpose: why the person was there, why they were travelling, what they were trying to do, and whether that fits reasonably with the job.

Workplace Environment

Workplace environment. The “workplace” is not limited to a person’s own desk or machine. A factory, for instance, is more than just the shop floor — it includes loading areas, storerooms, the canteen, staircases, rest areas and emergency exits. A hospital brings in wards, corridors and a pharmacy, and a construction site adds temporary roads, scaffolding and material stores into the picture. A worker moving through any of these areas can still be acting in the course of employment. A safe workplace means the employer has to think about the risks in the whole working environment. Slippery floors, poor lighting, broken stairs, unguarded machines and bad wiring can all cause injury even when the worker is not doing the “main” task at that moment. Supervision and training records, along with maintenance and risk-assessment records, can help show whether an accident is connected to employment and whether separate safety duties were also broken.

Disablement And Death

Disablement and death. The consequences of an employment injury need to be assessed carefully. Temporary disablement stops a worker from working for a limited time. Permanent partial disablement reduces the ability to do certain tasks or earn full wages. Permanent total disablement stops the worker from doing the kind of work they were capable of before the accident. Death obviously affects dependants and needs a separate process for distributing the statutory amount. Medical evidence should describe the injury, the treatment given, the outlook, any restrictions, and how long these are expected to last — the statutory formula should be followed rather than any rough guess. Employers should also avoid pushing an injured worker to return before they are medically cleared, since this can make the injury worse and cause further disputes.

Reporting And Preserving Evidence

Reporting and preserving evidence. Quick reporting matters for both sides. An accident report should record the date, time, place, people present, the work being done, equipment involved, the immediate circumstances and the first medical response — and it should stick to the facts rather than assigning blame too early. If a machine, vehicle, chemical or structure was involved, that item should

be preserved for examination where possible, since evidence like CCTV footage can disappear fast. Workers and co-workers should also feel free to report accidents without fear of being punished for it, since a system that punishes reporting only encourages people to hide problems and makes the workplace less safe overall. Contract workers, in particular, should have the same access to reporting and emergency arrangements as directly employed staff at the same site.

encourages people to hide problems and makes the workplace less safe overall. Contract workers, in particular, should have the same access to reporting and emergency arrangements as directly employed staff at the same site.

Medical Evidence And Causation

Medical evidence and causation. Medical evidence does two things it confirms that the injury or disease actually exists and how serious it is, and it can help show whether the condition matches the alleged accident or exposure. The doctor needs accurate information about the actual work done, how the injury happened, when it happened, and any earlier symptoms. Causation gets harder when symptoms appear only after a delay, such as with back injuries, hearing loss, or chemical exposure. A delay by itself should not be treated as proof the injury was unrelated to work, but the worker’s account, medical history, and workplace evidence all need to line up well enough to support the claim. For occupational-disease cases, specialised medical evidence is usually needed, covering the hazard involved, how intense and how long the exposure was, protective equipment used, and whether other workers were affected similarly.

Employer Control And Contractor Arrangements

Employer control and contractor Arrangements. Employer control is a useful factor, but not the only one. A worker can still be “in the course of employment” even when the employer is not physically present think of a delivery worker, a field technician, a driver, or a travelling sales representative. The absence of direct supervision at the exact moment of the accident does not, by itself, remove the employment connection. Records like duty schedules, communication logs, GPS data and delivery logs can help show that the worker was acting for the employer, but these need to be used and preserved fairly and lawfully. In contract-labour cases, the identity of the immediate employer may be different from the principal employer, even though the work is really part of the principal’s business. The Code’s rules on contractor liability and indemnity should be read together with the actual contract and the real nature of the work, since a contractual clause on its own cannot defeat a statutory right. [1]

Contract Labour Disputes

Contract labour disputes. Contract labour brings its own practical problems. A worker might draw wages from a contractor, work at a principal employer’s site, take daily instructions from the principal employer’s supervisor, and use equipment owned by yet another party. After an accident, each side may try to shift blame onto the other, but this kind of dispute should never delay emergency medical help or the preservation of evidence. The first step is identifying the real statutory relationship from documents like the contractor’s licence, the agreement with the principal employer, attendance and wage registers, identity cards, work orders, and insurance papers, since actual supervision and control can look quite different from what the contract says on paper. Where the Code makes a principal employer liable in certain situations, that employer may have a right of indemnity against the contractor, but this is a separate issue from the injured worker’s own entitlement.

Commuting Nexus Factors

Commuting nexus factors. For commuting claims, relevant facts include the starting point, destination, usual route, time of travel, duty hours, mode of transport, and any deviation. A journey starting before the shift formally begins does not automatically rule out the commuting provision, as long as the required nexus is shown. A journey has a stronger employment link when it involves employer provided transport, or follows a route and timing that is clearly tied to work; the link gets weaker when there is a substantial detour for an entirely private purpose. This is not something that should be reduced to counting minutes or kilometres alone the reason for the deviation, and its actual effect on the journey, matter too.

Emergencies And Good-Faith Assistance

Emergencies and good-faith assistance. Emergency provisions exist because workers sometimes have to act fast to stop serious harm — a fire, an explosion, a chemical leak or a structural collapse. A worker who tries to rescue a colleague or protect property may face risks well beyond their usual duties, and the law recognises that this kind of action can still be connected with employment. This rule should be read with attention to good faith. A worker does not need to have been correct about the danger, only to have reasonably believed it existed. But it should not be stretched to cover something completely unconnected to the employer’s premises or business. Employers should train workers in emergency response, evacuation and first aid, since a worker should not be expected to attempt dangerous rescue work with no training or equipment at all.

Breach Of Instructions And Wilful Misconduct

Breach of instructions and wilful misconduct. Whether breaking a workplace rule affects a claim depends on the exact statutory wording and the actual facts. A minor technical breach is not the same as a deliberate disregard of a known safety rule. It matters whether the rule was actually communicated and understood, whether it was realistic to follow and whether the breach directly caused the injury. The word “wilful” usually needs something more than simple carelessness or a genuine mistake. A worker might misunderstand an instruction, act under pressure, or follow an unsafe habit that supervisors have quietly tolerated for years, and these situations are different from a deliberate decision to remove a safety guard. Employers should also avoid writing excessive rules that are never actually enforced, since a safety policy only really works when it comes with training, supervision and consistent follow-through.

Intoxication And Safety Devices

Intoxication and safety devices. The Code’s compensation provisions carve out certain exceptions for intoxication, wilful disobedience and the removal or disregard of safety devices. [1] These are genuine exceptions and should not be read more broadly than their actual words allow. Claims of intoxication should be backed by real evidence — medical testing, contemporaneous observations or properly recorded witness statements — and an allegation that a guard was removed should similarly be supported by photographs, maintenance records or inspection reports, since the mere fact of an injury does not by itself prove employee misconduct. Even where such an exception applies, the employer’s general

safety duties do not simply disappear a workplace with poor equipment, weak supervision, or inadequate training cannot automatically blame every accident purely on the worker.

Prevention First

Prevention first. Compensation matters after the fact, but prevention is still the better response overall. Employers should identify hazards before work starts, judge how likely and how serious the harm could be, and use a mix of engineering controls, machine guards, isolation procedures,

ventilation, protective equipment, training and supervision. Safety should not depend only on individual alertness. A system that relies on workers staying constantly careful around defective machinery is weaker than one that simply removes the hazard or fits a reliable guard. Reviewing near misses and small injuries can also reveal the conditions that might otherwise cause a serious accident later, and worker participation through safety committees and toolbox meetings can help identify risks earlier.

HR And Compliance

HR and compliance. Human resource departments have a real, practical role here too. They need to keep joining records, wage details, attendance, insurance or social security registration, and emergency contacts accurate and up to date, and to coordinate with safety officers, payroll staff, contractors and medical providers after an accident. A clear internal procedure should say who is responsible for reporting the accident, arranging treatment, contacting family, preserving evidence, and processing benefits and this procedure should be available in a language the workers actually understand. Medical details are obviously sensitive and should stay only with people who actually need them, but that isn’t a reason to keep an accident hidden from the authority that is supposed to know about it.

Social Purpose Of Compensation

Social purpose of compensation. Employment injury compensation exists to spread out the economic cost of an accident, rather than leaving it entirely on the injured worker, especially where the risk came from the work itself. It cannot fully restore someone’s health or undo the emotional toll of a serious accident, but it can reduce financial insecurity. This system also recognises that workers often have less bargaining power than employers, so statutory rights matter because they exist independently of a worker’s ability to negotiate. At the same time, if every private accident were treated as an employment injury, the whole scheme would become unpredictable and hard to administer. A fair system protects genuine employment risk while still requiring real evidence of the statutory connection. Striking that balance is really the whole point of this doctrine.

Limitations Of This Study

Limitations of this study. This is a doctrinal paper, not a statistical survey of employment injury claims, and it does not examine how every state rule or scheme actually operates on the ground. The Code has different chapters and coverage conditions, so the outcome of any specific claim depends heavily on the worker’s status, the establishment involved and the applicable scheme. This paper also does not calculate compensation for any individual case, since that needs verified data on wages, age, disablement and dependants applied through the statutory formula. A future observational study could look at actual accident data and how contract workers are treated in practice.

XII. Conclusion

The doctrine of “arising out of and in the course of employment” remains the central connecting idea in employment injury law. It decides when an accident or occupational disease is close enough to work to deserve statutory protection. The first limb is about the relationship between employment and the risk that caused the injury. The second is about the time, place and circumstances in which it happened. Both parts need to be looked at together with real attention to how employment actually works in practice.

The Code on Social Security, 2020, takes a protective approach. It keeps a rebuttable presumption, and it deals separately with emergency and rescue situations, commuting where a nexus is shown, and

employer-provided or arranged transport. [1] It also addresses work-related acts done in breach of instructions, and it recognises occupational diseases within its own scheme. The employees’ compensation chapter deals with liability, exceptions, calculation, payment and claims.

The law does not make an employer responsible for every accident that happens in a worker’s private life.

A genuine employment connection is still required. But that connection should not be read so narrowly that a worker loses protection just because they were moving somewhere in the workplace, responding to an emergency, doing something reasonably connected to their job, travelling under an employer’s arrangement, or working somewhere away from the usual establishment.

A good decision-maker stays close to the actual facts and the evidence — the activity, its purpose, the time, place, route, the employer’s arrangements, medical evidence and any applicable presumption. Employers should keep a safe system of work and provide real training, preserve evidence, report accidents promptly, keep proper records and pay compensation without unnecessary delay. Employees, for their part, should follow safety instructions and report accidents, but worker conduct should never be used to cover up defective equipment or poor management practices.

In the end, employment injury law is really trying to do two things at once: give financial protection after an injury happens and push employers to prevent accidents before they happen in the first place. The principle is doing its job when it protects genuine employment-related risk without losing a clear legal boundary along the way. The analysis in this paper suggests that the Code on Social Security, 2020, can strengthen worker security and improve employer accountability, while much will depend on how well it is implemented.

It can help build safer workplaces overall, though, as with most social legislation, a lot will depend on how well it is actually implemented.

References

1. The Code on Social Security, 2020 (Act No. 36 of 2020), full text, India Code — https://www.indiacode.nic.in/handle/123456789/16823
2. Ministry of Labour and Employment, Government of India, Notification S.O. 5319(E), New Delhi, 21 November 2025 (commencement of provisions of the Code on Social Security, 2020) — https://labour.gov.in/sites/default/files/e-_noti-ss.pdf
3. The Employees’ Compensation Act, 1923, India Code — https://www.indiacode.nic.in/handle/123456789/19236
4. The Employees’ State Insurance Act, 1948, India Code — https://www.indiacode.nic.in/handle/123456789/17140
5. Saurashtra Salt Manufacturing Co. v. Bai Valu Raja and Ors., AIR 1958 SC 881, Indian Kanoon — https://indiankanoon.org/doc/163850/
6. Mackinnon Mackenzie & (P) Ltd. v. Ibrahim Mahommed Issak, AIR 1970 SC 1906, 1969
7. (2) SCC 607, [1970] 1 SCR 869, Indian Kanoon — https://indiankanoon.org/doc/945489/
8. Regional Director, ESI Corporation and v. Francis De Costa and Anr., (1996) 6 SCC 1,
9. Indian Kanoon — https://indiankanoon.org/doc/1095646/
10. Press Information Bureau, “Code on Social Security, 2020: Towards Universal and Inclusive Social Protection,” 22 November 2025 — https://static.pib.gov.in/WriteReadData/specificdocs/documents/2025/nov/doc20251122702601.pdf

• From Death Penalty to Life Term: Humanitarian Shifts in Justice
• Can a Company Terminate an Employee for a Pending 498A or Domestic Violence Case in India?
• Motor Accident Claims in India: MACT Compensation, Disability & Fatal Accident Claims
• Workplace Surveillance in the Post-Digital Personal Data Protection (DPDP) Act, 2023 Era: Reconciling Legitimate Employer Interests with Employee Right to Privacy
• Dubai Legal Reforms 2026: 9 Major UAE Law Changes Every Resident, Business & Investor Must Know