labour law final project

8/10/2019 Labour Law Final Project

1/21

CHANAKYA NATIONAL LAW UNIVERSITY

PATNA

13

LABOUR LAW-IIEMPLOYERS LIABILITY IN CASE OF

OCCUPATIONAL DISEASE

SUMIT KUMAR SUMAN

5th

Semester, 628


2/21

2

ACKNOWLEDGEMENT

First of all I want to thank GOD for successfully completing this project. Then I

want to give my sincere thanks to our respected Labour Law-I I Faculty,M r.

S.C.Roy Sirwho has guided me all the way in completing this project.

Then I would like to give thanks to our librarians who have helped me all the

way in searching through the source materials, which help me, lot in completing

the project.

The list couldnt be completed without thanking my family and my friends

who have encouraged me all the way in completing the project.

umit kumar suman


3/21

3

METHODOLOGY OF RESEARCH

RESEARCH METHODOLOGY:

Keeping the objectives in mind, material was collected with the help of different books and then

it was compiled to make the theoretical part of the project. The methodology of my research is

doctrinaire method.

RESEARCH TOOLS:

The research of this project was carried with the help of the Internet and Library of Chanakya

National Law University.

FOOTNOTING STYLE:

In whole of my project uniform footnoting style is adopted in conformity Chanakya National

Law University, Patna footnoting style along with blue book.

AIMS AND OBJECTIVES

In this present project, researcher wants to know about Occupational Diseases and provision

regarding the Employers liability in the case of occupational diseases and also want to knowthat Scope regarding the present research work (Section 3 of employer compensation Act, 1923).

SOURCE OF DATA

In this present project has used only one source of data:

Secondary

Books

Websites


4/21

4

TABLE OF CONTENTS

I.

INTRODUCTION...05II. BACKGROUND (EMPLOYEES COMPENSATION ACT, 1923)...06

III. CONCEPT OF LIABILITY UNDER EMPLOYEES

COMPENSATION ACT, 1923..08

1. NATURE OF LIABILITY

IV. EMPLOYERS LIABILITY .09

1. EMPLOYERS LIABILITY FOR COMPENSATION

2. IN CASE OF OCCUPATIONAL DISEASES

3. SCOPE OF SECTION 3 OF EMPLOYEES COMPENSATION ACT, 1923

V.

CONCLUSION20

BIBLIOGRAPHY


5/21

5

INTRODUCTION

In any industrial society the problem of labour management relations becomes so important that

some sort of social insurance becomes necessary to provide adequate protection from losses

caused to the labourers by accidents. With the view to improve the condition of the employees

some social insurance legislations have been enacted. This employees compensation Act is one

of the earliest measures adopted to benefit the labourers. It was passed in 1923 and enforced on

1stJuly, 1924. Since then a number of amendments have been made from time to time so as to

suit the changing needs and conditions of the employees. The object of the Act was to make

provision for the payment of compensation by certain class of employers to their employees for

injury by accident. Originally the Act was applicable to employees of certain specified

industries, employed otherwise than in clerical capacity; and receiving monthly wages no

exceeding Rs. 300. The employees were entitled to compensation from the employer in case of

personal injury caused by accident arising out of and in the course of employment with certain

reservations to the duration of incapacity and negligence of employee himself. The payment ofcompensation was mainly dependent upon the incapacity or disablement of employees. The

Employees Compensation Act creates a new type of liability.It is not strictly a liability arising

out of tort, but is a sort of liability arising out of the relationship of the employer and the

employee. An employer under this Act is liable to pay compensation at a rate fixed in the Act

itself to any employee incapacitated by an accident arising out of and in the course of his

employment. The main principle governing the compensation is not dependent on the suffering

caused to the employee or expenses incurred by him in his treatment but on the difference

between his wage earning capacity before and after the accident. The liability for the payment of

compensation is not dependent upon the neglect or wrongful act on the part of employer.1

1Misra, S. N. Labour and Industrial Law. 26th ed. Allahabad: Central Law Publications, 2011, p. 401.


6/21

6

BACKGROUND

The Employees Compensation Act is one of the earliest measures adopted to benefit the

labourers. It was passed in 1923 and enforced on 1st July, 1924. Since then a number of

amendments have been made from time to time as to suit the changing needs and conditions of

the employees. The object of this Act was to make provision for the payment of compensation by

certain class of employers to their employees for injury by accident. It was as early as 1884, that

the question of payment of compensation to employees involved in serious or fatal accidents was

raised when the factory and mining inspectors drew the attention of the government to this

human problem which warranted immediate legislative protection of employees. But its

importance was realized by the Government of India only at the end of 1920, when public

opinion was invited on connected issues. A committee consisting of members of the legislativeAssembly, employers, workers or representatives of workers, medical and insurance experts was

constituted. It was on the basis of recommendation of the committee that Employees

Compensation Act was enacted in 1923 which provided for setting up of tribunals on the

American model of decide disputes, appointment of special Commissioners with wide powers

and a limited right of appeal to the High Court.With the progress of time in the standards of

living in the society the Act has on many occasions been modified so as to benefit greater

number of employees and to provide for payment of greater amount of compensation to them.

The Royal Commission on labour paid a tribute to the smooth working of the Act and

recommended the extension of the benefits under the Act to a large class of employees. Prof.

Adarkar advocated for compulsory insurance of all employees. The result was that the

Employees State Insurance Act, 1948 was passed. This Act was a substant ial improvement over

the Employees Compensation Act. Any person who is covered by Employees state Insurance

Act, 1948 and who is entitled to receive disablement or dependants benefit under this Act is not

entitled to compensation from the employer under the Employees Compensation Act, 1923.So,

this Employees Compensation Act was framed with a view to provide for compensation to

employees incapacitated by an injury from accident arising out and in course employment and

also in case of occupational disease. This Act extends to the whole of India except the Jammu

and Kashmir. Unlike the English Act, this Act is not applicable to all employees. It applicable to

employees of certain industries.

FEATURES OF THE ACT-

1. The employees Compensation Act is modeled on this British pattern. Under the Act

payment of compensation has been made obligatory on all employers whose employees

are entitled to claim benefit under the Act.


7/21

7

2. The employee or his dependants may claim compensation if the injury has been caused

by accident arising out of and in the course of employment and in case lf injury not

resulting in death if such accident cannot be attributed to the employees having been at

the time of accident under the influence of drink or drugs or if it is not caused due to

willful disobedience of rule or orders or disregard of safety devices.

3.

In order to protected the interest of dependants in case of fatal accidents the following

provisions are made-

(i) All cases of fatal accident are to be brought to the notice of the commissioner;

(ii) If the employer admits his liability the amount of compensation payable is to be

deposited with the commissioner;

(iii) If the employer admits his liability and at the same time there are grounds for

believing compensation to be payable, the dependants get the information

necessary to enable them to judge if they should make a claim or not.

4. The Act is administered by the Commissioner for Employees Compensation appointed

by the State Government.


8/21

8

CONCEPT OF LIABILITY UNDER EMPLOYEES

COMPENSATION ACT, 1923

The concept of liability in labour law implies sanctions against those,breaking the law. This

injurious conduct takes place in the framework of permanent legal relations. However, liability isnot the only means of education; there are also other legal and extra-legal social means at our

disposal. This circumstances makes its effect felt in labour law in more than one respect. It

menifests itself in connection with the injurious conduct committed by employee in the

following: on the one hand, the legal regulation establishes a differentiated system of sanctions,

making it possible to take into consideration the situation within the collective, and it

considerably restricts the extent of material liability. On the other hand, it leaves it to the

discretion of the one who is entitled to claim liability whether he/she wishes to use this means of

individual and collective prevention. Finally, it has repeatedly been expressed in judicial practice

that in applying sanction one of the essential point of view to be considered is the internal

situation and the level of order and discipline in the enterprise. In case of an injury suffered by aworker, this manifests itself in that the employer, as a general rule, is held liable irrespective of

culpability and emphasizes that the enterprise should organize the work and cooperation within

its scope of activity in such a way as to prevent misconduct or accident.

NATURE OF LIABILITY

Liability in labour law arises only upon the infringement of a given right. However, it does not

arise automatically. The Employees Compensation Act creates a new type ofliability. It is not

strictly a liability arising out of tort, but is a sort of liability arising out of the relationship of the

employer and the employee. An employer under this Act is liable to pay compensation at a ratefixed in the Act itself to any employee incapacitated by an accident arising out of and in the

course of his employment. The main principle governing the compensation is not dependent on

the suffering caused to the employee or expenses incurred by him in his treatment but on the

difference between his wage earning capacity before and after the accident. The liability for the

payment of compensation is not dependent upon the neglect or wrongful act on the part of

employer.


9/21

9

EMPLOYERS LIABILITY

As per Employees Compensation Act, 1923 the term employer means and includes anybody of

persons whether incorporated or not and any managing agent of an employer and the legal

representative of a deceased employer, and, when the services of an employee are temporarily

lent or let on hire to another person by the person with whom the employee has entered into a

contract of service or apprenticeship, means such other person while the employee is working for

him (Section-2e).

Generally employers liability has been arising in case of any injury or any damage occurred due

to employer meaning thereby, if any injury has been arising during the course of employment the

employers are liable to pay compensation.

EMPLOYERS LIABILITY FOR COMPENSATION

If personal injury is caused to an employeeby accident arising out of and in the course of his

employment, his employer shall be liable to pay compensation in accordance with the provisionsof this Chapter:

Providedthat the employer shall not be so liable

(a) In respect of any injury which does not result in the total or partial disablement of the

employeefor a period exceeding three days;

(b) In respect of any [injury, not resulting in death or permanent total disablement, caused by

an accident which is directly attributable to

(i) The employeehaving been at the time thereof under the influence of drink or drugs,

or

(ii) The willful disobedience of the employee to an order expressly given, or to a rule

expressly framed, for the purpose of securing the safety of employees, or(iii) the willful removal or disregard by the employeeof any safety guard or other device

which he knew to have been provided for the purpose of securing the safety of

employees,

(2) If an employeeemployed in any employment specified in Part A of Schedule III contracts any

disease specified therein as an occupational disease peculiar to that employment, or if anemployee, whilst in the service of an employer in whose service he has been employed for a

continuous period of not less than six months (which period shall not include a period of service

under any other employer in the same kind of employment) in any employment specified in Part

B of Schedule III, contracts any disease specified therein as an occupational disease peculiar tothat employment, or if an employee whilst in the service of one or more employers in any

employment specified in Part C of Schedule III, for such continuous period as the Central

Government may specify in respect of each such employment, contracts any disease specifiedtherein as an occupational disease peculiar to that employment, the contracting of the disease

shall be deemed to be an injury by accident within the meaning of this section and, unless the

contrary is proved, the accident shall be deemed to have arisen out of, and in the course of, the

employment:


10/21

10

Provided that if it is proved,

(a) that an employee whilst in the service of one or more employers in any employment

specified in Part C of Schedule III has contracted a disease specified therein as an

occupational disease peculiar to that employment during a continuous period which is less

than the period specified under this sub-section for that employment, and

(b) that the disease has arisen out of and in the course of the employment;

the contracting of such disease shall be deemed to be an injury by accident within the meaning of

this section :

Provided furtherthat if it is proved that an employee who having served under any employer inany employment specified in Part B of Schedule III or who having served under one or more

employers in any employment specified in Part C of that Schedule, for a continuous period

specified under this sub-section for that employment and he has after the cessation of such

service contracted any disease specified in the said Part B or the said Part C, as the case may be,as an occupational disease peculiar to the employment and that such disease arose out of the

employment, the contracting of the disease shall be deemed to be an injury by accident within

the meaning of this section.(2A) If an employeeemployed in any employment specified in Part C of Schedule III contracts

any occupational disease peculiar to that employment, the contracting whereof is deemed to bean injury by accident within the meaning of this section, and such employment was under more

than one employer, all such employers shall be liable for the payment of the compensation in

such proportion as the Commissioner may, in the circumstances, deem just.

(3) The Central Government or the State Government], after giving, by notification in the

Official Gazette, not less than three months notice of its inten tion so to do, may, by a like

notification, add any description of employment to the employments specified in Schedule III,and shall specify in the case of employments so added the diseases which shall be deemed for the

purposes of this section to be occupational diseases peculiar to those employments respectively,

and thereupon the provisions of sub-section (2) shall apply, in the case of a notification by theCentral Government, within the territories to which this Act extends or, in case of a notification

by the State Government, within the State as if such diseases had been declared by this Act to be

occupational diseases peculiar to those employments.

(4) Save as provided by sub-sections (2), (2A) and (3), no compensation shall be payable to anemployee in respect of any disease unless the disease is directly attributable to a specific injury

by accident arising out of and in the course of his employment.

(5) Nothing herein contained shall be deemed to confer any right to compensation on an

employee in respect of any injury if he has instituted in a Civil Court a suit for damages in

respect of the injury against the employer or any other person; and no suit for damages shall be

maintainable by an employeein any Court of law in respect of any injury(a) If he has instituted a claim to compensation in respect of the injury before a Commissioner;

or

(b) If an agreement has been come to between the employeeand his employer providing for thepayment of compensation in respect of the injury in accordance with the provisions of this

Act.


11/21

11

Employers liability for compensation (Accidents)

The employer of any establishment covered under this Act is required to compensate an

employee:

(a)Who has suffered an accident arising out of land in the course of his employment,resulting into:

(i)

Death(ii) Permanent total disablement,

(iii) Permanent partial disablement,(iv) Temporary disablement whether total or partial, or

(b)Who has contracted an occupational disease?

In Saurashtra salt M anufactur ing co. v. Bai valu Raja,2the Supreme court had an opportunity

to provide the meaning and scope of the pharase arising out of and in the course of provided in

Section (3) (1) of the Workmens compensation Act. The appellant, in the instant case, is the

saurashtra salt manufacturing co. It employs workmen both temporary and permanent. The salt

works of the appellant is situated near a creek which has to be crossed by a boat. There are atleast two ways to go to salt works from the said town, one an over land route nearly 6 or 7 miles

long and the other via the creek which has to be crossed by a boat. At the porbandar end of the

creek is the asmavati Ghat and the creek can be crossed from there at point A to the other side

point B, which is on a sandy piece of land. Those crossing the creek from point a alight from theboat at point B. From point B, after travelling the sandy area, one can reach the salt jetty of the

salt works and the salt works itself. On the sandy area near point B, there is also a public

footpath which goes to the salt works at Point D, the distance being 1 and . mile. A boatcarrying certain workmen, who had been employed by the appellant, capsized due to bad

whether and over-loading while crossing the creek from point B to point A. As the result of the

accident, some of the workmen were drowned resulting in 7 cases for compensation being filled

under the Employees Compensation Act. The commissioner for workmens compensation foundthat the accident arose out of and in the course of the employment of the workmen. Accordingly,

he awarded compensation. The Appellant appealed to the High Court of saurashtra. The High

Court, after an elaborate discussion of the law, came to the same conclusion and dismissed theappeal with costs. In the appeal before Supreme Court, it was urged on behalf of appellant that

although the compensation had been paid to the dependants of the drowned workmen and the

appellant did not seek a refund of the same and the appellant must pay the costs of therespondents even in the event of success, it was essential for the appellant to have discussion

whether in the circumstances disclosed in this case, in law the appellant was liable to pay any

compensation.

The Supreme Court has applied the theory of notional extension and held:

As a rule, the employment of a workman does not commence until he was reached the

place of employment and does not continue when he has left the place of employment, thejourney to and from the place of employment being exclude. It is now well settled, however, that

this is subject to the theory of notional extension of the employers premises so as to include an

area which the workman passes and repasses in going to and in leaving the actual place of work.There may be regarded as in the course of his employment even though he had not reached or

had left his employers premises. The facts and circumstances of each case will have to be

2AIR 1958 SC 881.


12/21

12

examined very carefully in order to determine whether the accident arose out of land in the

course of employment of a workman, keeping in view at all times this theory of notional

extension.

IN CASE OF OCCUPATIONAL DISEASES

As per Section 3(2) certain occupations involve clear risks from specified diseases. If the

workers in these occupations contract particular diseases, it is practically certain that the disease

arose out of the employment. But most industrial diseases are contracted gradually, and in the

case of a workman who has pursued the same occupation under several employers, it is not

always possible to assign responsibility to any particular employer. This is especially the case as

regards lead poisoning and phosphorous poisoning, the two diseases at present entered in

Schedule III. On the other hand, anthrax is a disease which is not contracted gradually. The

clause accordingly provides that where a workman contracts one of the three specified

occupational diseases, it is for the employer to prove that the disease did not result from theemployment. Except in the case of anthrax. The grant of compensation is subject to the condition

that six months should have elapsed since the workman took service with the employer

concerned.

So, section 3(2), deals with the payment of compensation in case of an injury resulting from

occupational diseases. The list of the occupational diseases is contained in schedule III of the

Act. Schedule III is divided into three parts, A, B and C. The disease contracted must be an

occupational disease peculiar to the employment specified in schedule III. In respect of every

such disease mentioned as occupational disease in schedule III, a list of number of employments

is given. To support any claim for compensation in case of occupational disease in part A nospecified period of employment is necessary; for disease in part B the employee must be in

continuous employment of the same employer for a period of employment would be such as is

specified by the central Government for each such employment whether in service of one or

more employers. The contracting of any accident arising out of and in the course of employment

unless the contrary is proved.

Part A of schedule III- The employer shall be liable to pay compensation for an injury resulting

from an occupational disease mentioned in Part a of schedule III, if an employee employed in

any employment specified in part A of schedule III contracts any disease specified therein as an

occupational disease peculiar to that employment. The contracting of the disease shall be deemedto be an injury by accident would be deemed to have arisen out of and in the course of

employment.

Contracting of an occupational disease after discontinuance of service.- If any such

disease as is mentioned in part A of Schedule III develops after an employee has left the

employment, no compensation shall be payable to him.


13/21

13

Part B of schedule III.- In case of contracting of any disease mentioned in part B of schedule

III the employer shall be liable if an employee while in the service of an employer in whose

service he has been employed for a continuous period of not less than six months in any

employment specified in part B of schedule III contracts any disease peculiar to that

employment. The contracting of the disease shall be deemed to be an injury by accident within

meaning of this section, and unless contrary is proved, the accident would be deemed to have

arisen out of and in the course of the employment.

Contracting of an occupational disease after discontinuous of service- The employer

shall be liable to pay compensation to an employee where an employee contracts any disease as

aforesaid after he has left his employment in the following conditions:

1. If an employee has served under any employer in any employment specified in Part B of

Schedule III for a continuous period of six months.

2. If an employee has after cessation of his service contracted any disease specified in Part

B of Schedule III as an occupational disease peculiar to that employment.3. If it is proved that such disease arose out of employment.

The contracting of the disease shall then be deemed to be an injury by accident within the

meaning of this section.

Part C of Schedule III- Where an employee contracts any disease specified in Part C of

Schedule III the employer shall be liable:

1. If an employee was in the service of one or more employers in any employment specified

in Part C of Schedule III for such continuous period as the Central Government may

specify in respect of each such employment; and

2. If he contracts any disease specified therein as an occupational disease peculiar to that

employment.

If the above two condition fulfilled, the contracting of the disease shall be deemed to be an

injury by accident within the meaning of section 3 of the Act and unless contrary is proved the

accident shall be deemed to have arisen out of and in the course of the employment.

According to the first proviso to sub-section 2 of section 3 if it is proved:

a. That an employee while in service of one or more employers in any employment

specified in Part C of the Schedule III has contracted a disease specified therein as an

occupational disease peculiar to the employment during a continuous period which is less

than the period specified under sub-section 2 of section 3 for that employment, and

b. That the disease has arisen out of and in the course of employment; the contracting of

such disease shall be deemed to be an injury by accident within the meaning of section 3

of the Act.


14/21

14

Contracting of such occupational disease after discontinuous of service.- where an

employee contracts an occupational disease after discontinuous of his service the employer

shall be liable to pay compensation:

1. If it is proved that the employee has served under one or more employers in any

employment specified in Part C of Schedule III for such continuous period as the centralGovernment may specify in respect of each employment;

2. If he has after cessation of his service contracted any disease specified in Part C of

Schedule III as an occupational disease to that employment; and

3. If it is proved that such disease arose out of the employment.

The contracting of the disease shall be deemed to be an injury by accident within the meaning of

this section.


15/21

15

SCOPE OF SECTION 3 OF EMPLOYEES COMPENSATION ACT, 1923

The Compensation Acts, by virtue of their own terms, are extended to cases of "personal injury

by accident arising out of or in the course of the employment." This is also the phraseology of

the English Act and for the most part, the same or similar words are used in the various

enactments of the American and the continental States of Europe.

The Workmen's Compensation Act is a beneficial statute which was enacted to provide payment

by certain class of employers to their workmen of compensation for injury by way of accident.

Since it is a beneficial legislation, the act is to be liberally construed so much so that it provides

security to workmen and their family resulting in loss of earning capacity. Section 3 of the said

Act fixes him liability on the employer for compensation. 11

The use of those words have played a very important part in the development of case law under

the statute: and as to the fundamental concept embodied in the language of this section, opinions

of Judges have not always been uniform. In this provision of the Act is to be found a description

of the conditions which, in respect of any particular calamity, place responsibility on the

employer and also a description of the conditions which fix responsibility therefor on the injured

employee. The question must then be determined as to what constitutes "injury arising out of or

in the course of the employment" between the employee on the one side and the employer or the

industry on the other: for under no statute as yet has the employee an absolute and incontestable

right to compensation, regardless of his position, conduct and intention at the time of the

calamity.

In order to attract section 3(1) of the Act, following three conditions must be fulfilled:

(i) Personal injury;

(ii) Accident; and

(iii) Arising out of and in the course of employment.

The practical effect of the passing of the Workmen's Compensation Act, is that it discarded the

old theory of the employer's fault as the basis of liability and conferred absolute right of

compensation on every employee who is injured by "accident arising out of and in the course of

the employment."


16/21

16

Discussing the question of taking rest during rest period, the Bombay High Court clarified in

AIR 1957 Bom 52 that the term employment does not necessarily mean to be on work, it also

extends to all things which a workman is entitled by way of contract of employment, expressly

or impliedly.

The plain reading of the material provision section 3 of the Act, makes it crystal clear that

employer's liability to pay compensation to a workman arises only if the personal injury is

caused to the workman by accident arising out of and in the course of his employment. 13

A workman left the place to collect labourer's salary from P.W.D. Officer and was murdered

while on his way. It was held in Public Works Department v. Kaunsa," 14 that the phrase

"arising out of employment" are wide enough to cover cases where there may be no direct

connection between the injury caused as a result of an accident in the employment on work. The

Court observed that if a particular accident would not have happened to a workman had he not

been employed to work in a particular place and condition, then it is an accident arising out of

employment.

In Saurashtra Salt Manufacturing Co. v. Bai Valu Raja, 15 the Supreme Court while discussing

the scope of section 3 (1) observed that it is now well settled that the employment of a workman

does not commence until he has reached the place of employment and does not continue when he

has left the place of employment, the journey to and from the place of employment being

excluded, is subject to the theory of notional extension of the employers premises so as to

include an area which the workman passes and repasses in going to and in leaving the actual

place of work. There may be some reasonable extension in both time and place and a workman

may be regarded as in the course of his employment even though he had not reached or had left

his employers premises. The facts and circumstances of each case require careful examination

for determining if the accident arose out of and in course of employment keeping in view the

theory of notional extension.

It is also equally well settled that when a workman is on a public road or place or transport, he is

there as any other member of the public and is not there in the course of his employment unless

the very nature of his employment makes it necessary for him to be there. A workman is not in

the course of his employment the moment he leaves his house and is on his way to work. He is in


17/21

17

the course of his employment if he reaches the place of work or a point or an area which comes

within the theory and notional extension outside of which the employer has no liability for any

accident happening to him.

A driver of the Irrigation Survey Department died while on election duty and the Commissioner

awarded the compensation. Elaborating on the point if in the present case the deceased died in

the course of employment of State or not, the Rajasthan High Court observed in State of

Rajasthan v. Smt. Kanta, 16 that under the Scheme of the Act, unless established by consistent

evidence from the employer that the employee did not die in discharge of his duty, it will be

presumed that the employee died in the course of the employment. The Court held that the driver

being on election duty all the 24 hours, died in the course of employment and his claimants were

entitled for compensation.

A workman was cleaning the machinery of his employer on a holiday and met with an accident.

It was held by the Madras High Court in Management of Sree Lalithambika Enterprises v. S.

Kailasam,1987 55 FLR 129: (1988) 1 LLJ 63, that the fact of the time of accident being a

holiday does not advance the case of the management in as much as the accident occurred while

cleaning the machinery and must be held to have occurred in the course of employment. The

Court upheld the factual finding.

Discussing the scope of loss in earning capacity the Court held that the loss in earning capacity

should not be confined only to the present capacity because the earning capacity in future is also

an important factor. The continuation of the workman after injury on same salary is only begging

the question. If this were the law, any employer can evade his liability and provisions of the Act.

A truck was given on hire to 'A' in pursuance of a hire agreement and was not sold. The cleaner

of the truck died because of an accident caused by rash and negligent driving. The Madhya

Pradesh High Court held in Ranibai v. Shamsher Singh, 17 that 'A' can be said to working as an

agent of the owner of the truck who had the insurance of the truck in his name. The owner cannot

escape liability on the basis of hire agreement. The insurance company also cannot evade its

liability as it is vicariously liable to A on the basis of its insurance policy. It was held that all the

respondents were jointly and severally liable to pay compensation.


18/21

18

Compensation-Quantum-Jurisdiction of Commissioner-Original pleading about quantum-Raising

of fresh contention subsequently.

The High Court observed thus:

"There was no dispute as to the territorial jurisdiction of the court or as to whether the deceased

was a workman or not. The only contention was regarding the amount of compensation. Under

the circumstances, the respondent could not be allowed to raise any other point beyond the

pleadings as given in the reply to the notice. Moreover, both the contentions raised on behalf of

the respondent required the leading of evidence and unless the same were specifically pleaded

and issues framed, the respondent could not be allowed to raise this point at the stage of

arguments. Under the circumstances the High Court opined that instead of sending the case back

for decision on merits to the learned Commissioner, it would be in the interest of justice to grant

a sum of Rs. 8,000 by way of compensation to the appellant to which the respondent itself

admitted in reply to the notice."

In the result, the order of the learned Commissioner was set aside and the appellant was found

entitled to a sum of Rs. 8,000 by way of compensation. 18

A Railway employee travelling back to his residence in a local train after completion of his duty,

in a free pass, met with an accident. Elaborating if the accident was in the course of employment

the Bombay High Court observed in Parvatiammal Dharmalingam v. Divisional Superintendent,

Central Railway, Bombay, 19 that the question was if a railway employee met with an accident

while travelling back from his place of duty to his residence by a local train using a free pass

given by his employer, can the accident be treated to have taken place in the course of

employment within the purview of Section 3. Relying on the Supreme Court judgment in a

similar case of General Manager, BEST Undertaking, Bombay v. Agnes, 20 in which there were

similar circumstances, the Court held that the accident occurred out of and in the course of the

employment and the entitlement to claim was upheld.

A workman, fell down while doing his work and sustained injuries which in course of time

caused total disablement. The employer a building contractor took the plea that the workman was

no longer working with him and that at the time of accident he had no work contract in the

building in which the accident occurred.


19/21

19

The Bombay High Court held in M.S. Varma and Co. v. Ganga Ram Kamta Kevat, 21 that the

workman was working in Manisha Building as a workman of the employer for the last one year

before the day of accident. The employer's brother was working in the employment of same

employer in the same building on the day of the accident. Both the facts being incontrovertible

the inevitable conclusion is that the employer did have a work contract in the Manisha Building

on the day of the accident. It is also true that, on the day in question other workman of the

employer were working in the building. The Court observed that it was reasonable to conclude

that both of these employees were employees of the same employer and the injured workman

met with an accident resulting in total disablement in the course of and arising out of his

employment.

In another case a workman sustained injury in the course of employment and did not recover

even for a single day to join his duty and ultimately died as a result. The death was attributable to

acceleration of existing ailment due to injury.

The Bombay High Court held in Kalavati Sakharam Ingulrar v. Mahindra Ugine Steel Co. Ltd.,

22 that the Commissioner was not justified in holding that death was not even attributable to or

accelerated by the injury. If the workman was having big stones in both kidneys for years and

nothing had happened he could as well have survived for a few more years but for the injury.

The High Court upheld the entitlement of claim.

The Madhya Pradesh High Court observed that the word "employment" used in Section 3,

Workmen's Compensation Act has a wider meaning than the word "work". The principle of

notional extension of employer's premises was applied in this case and the lower court followed

judgment in Bombay Electric Supply and Transport Undertaking. v. Mrs. Agnes, 1963 (2) LLJ

615: AIR 1964 SC 193: (1964) 3 SCR 930. The deceased was going to attend his duty from his

house and on his way met with an accident. The act of the deceased of going from his house for

attending to his duty would be included in the term "employment" and the trial Court did not errin any way in applying the notional extension theory in the facts and circumstances of the case.

Regarding delay, the Court observed that the applicant is an illiterate lady and has explained the

reasons for delay to the satisfaction of the trial court.


20/21

20

CONCLUSION

So, basically after all the research researcher found that Workers often sustain an injury or

contract a disease arising out of their employment for which the employer and workers

compensation insurer deny workers compensation benefits, on the grounds that the worker

cannot identify a specific traumatic event that caused or precipitated the injury or disease. Such

a denial may be contrary to fact and law. It is not always necessary for the worker to be able to

identify a specific event or date of injury for the claim to be compensable. The purpose of this

research work is to explain the concept of occupational injury or disease, for which workers

compensation benefits may indeed be awarded.


21/21

21

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Pk padhi, 2nd

edition, labour and industriallaws, eastern economy edition, phl learning

private limited, new delhi. P. 591, 593-595.

PL Malik, 11

thedition, eastern book company, lucknow , 2007,

Misra, S. N.Labour and Industrial Law. 26th ed. Allahabad: Central Law Publications,

2011.

Patel,Vithalbhai B . Law on Industrial Disputes. 4th ed. New Delhi: Lexis Nexis

Butterworths Wadhwa Nagpur, 2010.

Saharay, Dr. H.K.Labour and Industrial Law. 5th ed. New Delhi: Universal Publishing

Co., 2011.

Singh, Dr. Avtar, and Dr.Harpreet Kaur.Introduction to Labour and Industrial Law. 2nd

ed. New Delhi: Lexis Nexis Butterworths Wadhwa Nagpur, 2008.

Srivastava S.C (Rev.) LabourLaw and Labour Relations : Cases and Materials(3rd ed.,

2007).

Pai G.B,Labour Law in India(2001).

labour law final project

Documents