JAGANNATHAN, J. ( 1 ) THE dismissal of the claim petition has given rise to this appeal and the only point that is involved in this matter is whether Tribunal was justified in directing the appellant to seek relief from the forum under the Employees' State Insurance Act, 1948 (in short 'the ESI Act' ). ( 2 ) THE learned counsel for the appellant mr. K. V. Narasimhan submitted that the accident in question took place on a public road before the appellant could enter his office premises and further, the appellant was going on his own bicycle when the accident took place involving a Tempo. Therefore, it was submitted that the Tribunal erred in placing reliance on section 53 of the ESI Act as well as on the judgment of this court in the case of United India insurance Co. Ltd. v. K. N. Thipperudraiah, 1997 ACJ 878 (Karnataka), on that point. ( 3 ) HAVING heard the submissions made by both sides, it is clear from the facts narrated in the course of the order passed by the Tribunal that the appellant was going on his own bicycle and just before entering the office, the accident took place involving a Tempo and, therefore, the question of the case coming within the purview of section 53 of the ESI Act does not arise and furthermore, the injury sustained by the appellant also does not come within the purview of section 2 (8) of the ESI act. Section 2 (8) of the ESI Act defines employment injury as follows: "'employment injury' means a personal injury to an employee caused by accident or an occupational disease arising out of and in the course of his employment, being an insurable employment, whether the accident occurs or the occupational disease is contracted within or outside the territorial limits of India. " Section 53 of the ESI Act reads as under:"bar against receiving or recovery of compensation or damages under any other law.- An insured person or his dependants shall not be entitled to receive or recover, whether from the employer of the insured person or from any other person, any compensation or damages under the Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923 (8 of 1923), or anyother law for the time being in force or otherwise, in respect of an employment injury sustained by the insured person as an employee under this Act. " ( 4 ) A combined reading of the above two provisions will make it clear that it is only where the injury is caused to an employee in an accident arising out of or in the course of employment that the case becomes squarely covered by section 53 of the ESI Act and there will be a bar of making claim before any other forum. ( 5 ) IN the case on hand, it is not in dispute that the appellant was going on his own bicycle and the accident took place on a public road. Therefore, the facts and circumstances of the case do not come within the purview of or under the definition of 'employment injury' and within the provisions of section 53 of the ESI Act. The Tribunal, therefore, committed serious error in not examining the facts of the case in the light of the above provisions of the esi Act and consequently has dismissed the claim petition erroneously. ( 6 ) WE are, therefore, satisfied with the submission made by learned counsel for the appellant Mr. K. V. Narasimhan that the Tribunal was not justified in rejecting the claim petition. ( 7 ) HENCE, we allow the appeal and set aside the impugned judgment of the tribunal and remand the matter to the Tribunal for fresh consideration and to dispose of the matter in accordance with law. In view of the case being an old one pertaining to the year 2000, arising out of M. V. C. No. 43 of 1996, we further direct the Tribunal to dispose of the matter within 3 months from the date of receipt of this order. We further direct the parties to appear before the Tribunal on 29. 6. 2006. It is also made clear that the parties will not get any further notice from the Tribunal in this regard. Appeal allowed. - .