WORKMEN'S COMPENSATION - A comparative Study

The workmen’s compensation Act, 1923 is one of the earliest labour welfare and social security leg-
islation of the labour law in India. Workmen’s Compensation Act,1923 now had been changed to
Employees Compensation Act, 1923. Section 2(1)(n) of the Workmen’s Compensation Act, 1923
defines ‘workmen’ for the purposes of awarding the compensation to workman or to his dependants.
Basically it is defined as the amount payable by an employer towards the employees for any injuries
occurred at the time of employment. It recognises that if a workman is a victim of an accident or an
occupational disease at the time of his employment, then he needs to be compensated and this act
does not applies to those workers who are insured under the Employees State Insurance Act, 1948.
The Legislature’s intention was to make the employer an insurer of the workman responsible against
the loss caused by the injuries or death, which ought to have happened, while the workman was
engaged in his work.1 Medical benefits are considered as the most common kind of benefits under
workers compensation in India. The laws for the workers compensation are covered by the Work-
men’s Compensation Act, 1923 in India. Workers who are employed in plantations, mines and me-
chanically drive vehicles, construction works, factories and other areas where workers are in consid-
erable physical danger are considered for compensation under the Workmen’s Compensation Act,
1923. Nature of injury, age of the injured worker and his or her average monthly wage are the main
factors on which workers are been compensated.

Prior to this Workmen’s Compensation Act,1923, employer was liable to pay compensation only if
he was guilty of negligence. But after this act came into the effect in 1923 the employer was made
liable to pay compensation irrespective of negligence. The aim of the Workmen’s Compensation Act
is to provide compensation more as a sort of relief to the workman and not as the damages payable
by the employer for a wrongful act or tort.
An employer is liable to pay compensation if personal injury is caused to a workman by accident
arising out of and in the course of his employment.2 An employer is not liable in following cases:
Injury which does not result in total or partial disablement of workman for a period exceeding 3
days.3

1
Sunita Devi v. Avtar Singh, (2004) 104 FJK 1007 (Jhar).
2
Section 3(1), Workmen’s Compensation Act, 1923.
3
Subs. By Act 8 of 1959, sec 3, for “seven” (w.e.f. 1-6-1959).
 Injury caused by an accident directly attributable to workman under influence of drinks or drugs,
wilful disobedience of express orders for safety, wilful removal of safety guard or device.4 [Even
if such case, if the workman dies or suffers permanent total disablement, the employer will be
liable].

The connection between accident and employment:-

- The Employee met with an fatal accident while traveling to his work place by using public
transport as a system for commutation. There was no restriction imposed on the employee as per
the employment terms as to the use of transport to the place of work. Moreover the employee was
not using the transport provided by the employer. So the court held that , there is no casual con-
nection between accident and employment could be established. Hence, the claimant is not entitled
to any compensation.5
- If the deceased employee met with his death while he was going to his place of work and the death
has arisen during the course of employment, then the employer is liable for compensation.6
- When it can be established that the death of the employee was caused due to the stress and strain
of the work and the working condition, there is no need to prove the direct connection between
the death and the duties conferred upon the employee. A casual connection between the two is
sufficient to show that the dependants of the deceased would be entitled to claim compensation
from the employer.7
- Injury sustained by a workman must be a physical injury on account of accident.8

Doctrine of Notional Extension is considered as the main factor through which the principle behind
compensation to the injured worker is laid down under the Workmen’s Compensation Act, 1923.
Basically this doctrine focuses on the course of the employment of a worker. Whereas the doctrine
of added peril is contrary to the doctrine of notion extension. Employees are benefited through the
doctrine of notional extension whereas the employer are benefited from the doctrine of added peril.
Basically doctrine of added peril states that if a workman while doing his masters work undertake to
do something by his own which he is not ordinarily called upon to do and which involves extra danger
then he cannot hold his master liable for the risk arising there from.

4
Subs. By Act 15 of 1933, section 3, for “injury to a workman resulting from”.
5
State Bank of India v. Vijay Laxmi, 1998 LLR 319.
6
T.N.C.S. Corporation Ltd. v. s. Poomalai, 1995 LLR 63 (Mad): 1995 I LLJ HC MDS (378).
7
Divisional Personal Officer, Western Railway v. Asluya Segam, 1994 LLR 11 (Raj).
8
Leela Devi v. Ramlal Rahu, 1990 LLR 213 (HP).