The main legal point established in the judgment is the application of the doctrine of notional extension of employment and the requirement for a causal connection between the accident and the employment, particularly in relation to the employee's duty to use a particular means of transport related to the employment.

1. The application of the doctrine of notional extension of employment arises for consideration in this case. This is an appeal against the decision of the Industrial Tribunal, Calicut in an application under S, 75 of the Employees State Insurance Act. The applicant before the Employees' Insurance Court, Calicut, which is the first respondent in this appeal, was employed with M/s. J. & P. Coats (P Limited, Koratty, the second respondent in the appeal and he is an insured employee. While proceeding to the factory from his house for reporting for duty on 26 61971, he met with an accident at about 4.15 p.m. The accident took place at about 1 Kilometre to the north of the factory. The applicant was riding a bicycle at that time and he was hit by a lorry belonging to the employer. As a result of the accident his collar bone was fractured and he sustained other injuries. He was under treatment till 6 71971. The worker was totally and permanently incapacitated for work in the factory using bis left upper limb and it was so certified by the Insurance Medical Officer after treatment. This, according to the applicant, is an employment injury and he brought this to the notice of the Regional Director, Employees' State Insurance Corporation, the appellant here. The case that it was an employment injury was disputed and thereupon the petition was moved by the worker for a declaration that he had suffered a permanent disablement injury which was an employment injury and consequently for grant of such benefits as are due to him under law. Since the accident took place outside the factory premises and that before the working hours commenced and further since it was at a place 1 Kilometre away from the factory it was contended by the Employees State Insurance Corporation that the injury cannot be characterised as an employment injury and the applicant was entitled only to the sickness benefit for the whole period, which he got from the Corporation. The Management M/s. J. & P. Coats also appeared and contended that the injury was not one suffered as a result of employment. The Employees' Insurance Court found that the applicant met with the accident in the course of employment and so he is entitled to get the benefits contemplated under the provisions of the Act. The Employees' State Insurance Corporation was called upon to decide the amount payable under law in the circumstances of the case. It is this decision of the Court that is challenged in this appeal by the Regional Director, Employees' State Insurance Corporation, Trichur.

2. The circumstances under which the employee met with the injury are not disputed. These are stated in the order under appeal thus:

"It is not disputed that on the particular day he was due to report for duty at 4.30 P.M. The accident was caused at about 4.15 P.M. He was on his way from his house to the factory Nobody has a case that this is not a usual route through which he has to go and report for work at the factory. It has also come out in evidence that the management has paid necessary amount as advance to purchase a cycle to facilitate the speedy transport to the factory

In this case the worker was to report for duty at 4.30 P.M. The company has given the necessary amount to purchase a cycle to facilitate his prompt arrival and speedy departure from the factory premises No case that the injury was sustained while he was taking a different route. The worker's case is that he was using the usual route to reach the factory from his house. Nobody disputed this. Nobody accuses of him of negligence while riding the cycle. It has to be stated that he was going to the factory at 4.15 P M. and he was to report at 4.30 P.M. for duty and there is nothing contrary to prove that he was on leave or was likely to be absent in the factory.

These circumstances would show that he met with an accident while in the course of employment and so, he is entitled to get the benefits contemplated under the provisions of the E