Case:

Brief Facts:

• The appellant, Mr Sathiaseelan Nagappan (“Mr Sathiaseelan”), travels from Ipoh to Kulim on every Sunday evening so that he could rest for the night in his rented house in Kulim and then proceed to work in a factory 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 was so as to be with his family for the weekend.
  
  
• Unfortunately, on 16 October 2016 at about 5pm, Mr Sathiaseelan met with an accident on the way from Ipoh to Kulim.
  
  
• He claimed from the respondent, the Social Security Organisation (“SOCSO”), for temporary disability benefits for employment injuries suffered in the course of an employee’s work arising out of or in the course of his employment.
  
  
• However, SOCSO, refused payment on the ground that the injury sustained was not an “employment injury”.
  
  
• Mr. Sathiaseelan challenged SOCSO’s decision at the High Court which dismissed his challenge. He then appealed to the Court of Appeal.

THE DECISION OF HIGH COURT

• The High Court dismissed Mr Sathiaseelan’s claim on the ground that the injuries suffered are not “employment injuries” because the journey from his home in Ipoh to Kulim was not one that was necessary to be performed or undertaken for his work.
  
  
• 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.

THE DECISION OF COURT OF APPEAL – APPEAL ALLOWED

• The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal and held that the injuries suffered on the journey from Ipoh to Kulim are “employment injuries” under the Employees’ Social Security Act 1969 (“ESSA”).
  
  
• The relevant question to ask is whether it is necessary for Mr Sathiaseelan to make that journey. In other words, had it not been for his employment, would he have made the journey.
  
  
• Mr Sathiaseelan’s journey from his place of residence in Ipoh, where he stayed with his family during the weekends, back to Kulim in Kedah on Sunday evening, was clearly a journey made that was “directly connected” to his employment because the said journey was necessary for him to arrive at Kulim for work the next day.
  
  
• There is no requirement that the employer must have instructed him to make that journey. It was a journey that Mr Sathiaseelan would not have needed to make if not for the fact of his work in the factory of his employer in Kulim.
  
  
• For so long as it is not an economic or enjoyment pursuit as in a holiday but that the commuting is necessary for work in the way the employee has so arranged his routine, the employee should not be left high and dry when an accident happens that causes him to suffer an injury.
  
  
• Such an injury would be work-related and an “employment injury” within the meaning provided under the ESSA, entitling him to make a claim for the disability suffered as a result.