|
An employer may provide to his workmen houses which they are free to rent or not as they choose. In such an event, the course of employment does not extend to a workman's residence provided by his employer. But, if it is an express or implied condition of employment, that the employee should live in a house provided by the employer, and is living in the house for the purpose of his duty so that he can be on call, if necessary, or can render some service, if an emergency arises, the workman will be in the course of his employment while he is in the house and while he is moving between the house and his work. This applies, for example, to a station master living in quarters adjoining the railway station, or to a gate-keeper living at a level crossing, or to men who are assigned with quarters with a view to protection of the employer's premises against thieves or fire. But if the employee lives in the employer's house not because of any duty but because there happens to be nowhere else where he can conveniently live, as in some industrial settlements in India, he is not in the course of employment while he is living in that house. The course of employment in a case like this does not extend to his leisure hours at home. The fall of the roof of house on the workman would be an accident arising out of his employment, but would not arise in the course of his employment. The same considerations apply where the workman lives in house because the employer provided it free, so long as there is no duty associated with its occupation.
|
