Case:

Brief Facts:

• The Applicant [“Fikrurrahim Awang”] is an employee of Islamic Outreach ABIM. He was insured under the Employees’ Social Security Act 1969 [“the Act”].
  
  
• On 12.05.2021, which was the eve of Eid Al-Fitr, Fikrurrahim Awang was working until 7.30pm. He then rested at a homestay provided by his employer before making his journey to his hometown on 13.05.2021 at around 5.00am.
  
  
• Unfortunately, he was involved in an accident [“the Accident”]. As a result of the Accident, he became permanently disabled on his right hand.
  
  
• On 1.08.2021, Fikrurrahim Awang submitted the necessary form to Social Security Organization [“SOCSO”] to claim for benefits as an insured person under the Act.
  
  
• However, on 12.10.2021, SOCSO ruled that the Accident is not ‘out of and in the course of his employment’ as stipulated under section 24 of the Act and rejected his claim.
  
  
• Fikrurrahim Awang appealed to Social Security Appellate Board on the same day.
  
  
• On 25.01.2023, a hearing was conducted. Then, on 22.02.2023, the Social Security Appellate Board rejected the appeal.
  
  
• As a result, Fikrurrahim Awang filed an appeal to the High Court against the decision of the Board. The question was whether the Accident is considered as a work-related accident within the meaning of section 24 of the Act.
  
  
• Further, the Respondent [“Director General”] raised a preliminary question that Fikrurrahim Awang’s appeal to the High Court was filed beyond the time limit provided under the Act.

THE DECISION OF THE HIGH COURT (HC)

• Firstly, under section 91 of the Act, a person can appeal to the High Court within 60 days from the date the order is made.
  
  
• The HC read section 92 of the Act with the Act’s object and purpose in mind, i.e., a social legislation that aims to give protection for workers.
  
  
• Therefore, it was ruled that the 60 days limit must start on 02.2023. This is the date in which Fikrurrahim Awang was aware of the Social Security Appellate Board’s decision.
  
  
• Secondly, in deciding whether Fikrurrahim Awang’s travel on 13.05.2021 is considered as a ‘journey made for any reason which is directly connected to his employment’ the HC reminded itself to the object and purpose of the Act.
  
  
• The HC noted the need for Fikrurrahim Awang to travel to his hometown for Eid Al-Fitr which is important for a Muslim.
  
  
• It was decided that Fikrurrahim Awang was only able to travel back to his hometown on 13.05.2021, and not earlier was because of his work commitment. It was required of him by his employer to work on 12.05.2021.
  
  
• Therefore, given the fact that Fikrurrahim Awang will have to travel to his hometown for Eid Al-Fitr and can only do so on 13.05.201, the said travel is a ‘journey made for any reason which is directly connected to his employment’.
  
  
• Thus, the Accident arose ‘out of and in the course of his employment’ under section 24 of the Act, entitling Fikrurrahim Awang for the benefits.