Commuting to work encompasses journeys undertaken for rest purposes that are directly connected to employment, thus qualifying as 'employment injuries' under ESSA.

[1] The appellant was travelling from Ipoh to Kulim on a Sunday evening so that he could rest for the night in his rented house at his place of stay in Kulim and then proceed to work at Infineon Technology Sdn Bhd in Kulim itself in a better shape after a good night's rest. It was his practice every weekend to go home to Ipoh where his place of residence is so as to be with his family for the weekend. On that fateful day on 16 October 2016 at about 5pm he met with an accident on the way from Ipoh to Kulim.

[2] He claimed from the respondent for temporary disability benefits under a compulsory fault-free insurance scheme for employment injuries suffered in the course of an employee's work as in arising out of or in the course of his employment. The respondent, also referred to as the Social Security Organisation or more popularly called SOCSO, to whom his employer and him have been faithfully contributing towards the insurance scheme, refused payment on the ground that the injury sustained is not an "employment injury".

[3] The respondent rejected his claim on 10 January 2017 on the basis that the injury arising from the road accident while commuting is not an "employment injury" pursuant to s 2(6) read together with s 24(1)(a), (b) or (c) and s 24(2) of the Employees' Social Security Act 1969 (" ESSA ").

[4] Dissatisfied with the said decision of the respondent the appellant applied to the Social Security Appellate Board ("Appellate Board") that heard the appeal and on 11 July 2017 dismissed the appeal on the ground that the employment injury was not one falling within the meaning of s 2(6) read together with s 24(1)(a) ESSA .

[5] That did not deter the appellant who took the matter up further on appeal to the High Court as was allowed under s 91 of the ESSA . The High Court allowed his appeal on 29 January 2020 and set aside the decision of the Appellate Board and further directed for the matter to be reheard before a different panel on whether the "employment injury" is one falling within the meaning of s 2(6) read together with s 24(1)(b) .

[6] The Appellate Board reheard the matter again on 17 July 2020 this time on the applicability of s 24(1)(b) of the ESSA . On 11 September 2020 the Appellate Board again dismissed the appeal and hence the appellant appealed to the High Court at Ipoh.

[7] The Appellate Board held that the accident was not one that happened while the insured was travelling on a journey made for any reason which is directly connected to his employment within the deeming provision of s 24(1)(b) of ESSA and thus is not an "employment injury" within the meaning of s 2(6) of the and thus the employee is not entitled to or eligible to claim for any temporary disability benefits under the .

[8] He further appealed to the High Court against the decision of the Appellate Board under s 91 ofthe ESSA and the High Court on 22 June 2021 also dismissed his claim on the ground that the injuries suffered are not "employment injuries" as they did not arise out of or in the course of his employment.

[9] The High Court was of the view that s 24(1)(b) of the ESSA did not apply as the journey from his home in Ipoh to Kulim was not one that was necessary to be performed or undertaken for his work and that it would have been different if the injury suffered while travelling to work had been from his rented house in Kulim to the factory in Kulim Hi-Tech Park where he worked.

Before The Court Of Appeal

[10] The appellant had appealed from the High Court's decision to the Court of Appeal. It was argued that though there was a break in the journey in Kulim from Ipoh to Kulim on a Sunday evening before proceeding to work