LABOUR LAW BA.LL.

B (VIII)
UNIT-II
Doctrine of Notional Extension under Employees Compensation Act

It is easy to determine that the accident occurred in the course of employment when a workman
is injured in the working place and during the working hour. The actual problem arises when the
accident does not occur during the course of employment or injured in the working place during
the working hours. But if the workman injured near the work premises then the problem arises as
will the employee is entitle for the compensation under workmen’s compensation act. According
to doctrine of notional extension compensation to be provided to the injured worker under
Employees Compensation Act 1923. This doctrine signifies the course of employment.
Section 3(1) workmen’s compensation act, 1923 provides that the injury must be caused to
workmen by an accident arising out of and in the course of employment. Employment does not
necessarily ends when the tool down signal is given or when the workmen leave the actual
workshop. There is notional extension as both the entry and exit time and space. As employment
may end or may begin not only when the employee begins to work or leaves his tools but also
when he used the means of access and egress to and from the place of employment.
It is settled in various case laws and also doctrine of notional extension states the employee is
entitle for the compensation also when is injured outside the working premises when during
coming and going to the place of work. The doctrine of notional extension is being dealt
extensively in case where an employee of M/S electronic product of India, Chandigarh left his
house at about 8:30 am to join his duties at 9:00 am. He died at bus stand while waiting for the
local bus. It was held that the employee died while he was going to his place of work. The theory
of notional extension will apply and the death occurred in the course of employment. Doctrine
of added peril is contrary to the doctrine of notional extension as added peril provides the
benefits to the employer but on the contrary notional extension provides the benefits to the
employee. The notional extension doctrine has a vital advantage to the employees working in an
establishment, in the course of employment and they can duly claim benefits due to the doctrine
of notional extension. Under workmen’s compensation act, 1923 doctrine of notional extension
grants compensation and will be applicable only when there is un-rebutted evidence that the
death of the deceased occurred due to stress and strain during the course of employment.
It is easy to determine that the accident occurred in the course of employment when a workman
is injured in the working place and during the working hour. The actual problem arises when the
accident does not occur during the course of employment or injured in the working place during
the working hours. But if the workman injured near the work premises then the problem arises as
will the employee is entitle for the compensation under workmen’s compensation act and
Employee state insurance act.
According to doctrine of notional extension compensation to be provided to the injured worker
under workmen’s compensation act 1923. This doctrine signifies the course of employment.
Section 3(1) workmen’s compensation act, 1923 provides that the injury must be caused to
workmen by an accident arising out of and in the course of employment. Employment does not
necessarily ends when the tool down signal is given or when the workmen leave the actual
workshop. There is notional extension as both the entry and exit time and space. As employment
may end or may begin not only when the employee begins to work or leaves his tools but also
when he used the means of access and egress to and from the place of employment.
It is settled in various case laws and also doctrine of notional extension states the employee is
entitle for the compensation also when is injured outside the working premises when during
coming and going to the place of work. The doctrine of notional extension is being dealt
extensively in case where an employee of M/S electronic product of India, Chandigarh left his
house at about 8:30 am to join his duties at 9:00 am. He died at bus stand while waiting for the
local bus. It was held that the employee died while he was going to his place of work. The theory
of notional extension will apply and the death occurred in the course of employment. Doctrine
of added peril is contrary to the doctrine of notional extension as added peril provides the
benefits to the employer but on the contrary notional extension provides the benefits to the
employee. The notional extension doctrine has a vital advantage to the employees working in an
establishment, in the course of employment and they can duly claim benefits due to the doctrine
of notional extension. Under workmen’s compensation act, 1923 doctrine of notional extension
grants compensation and will be applicable only when there is un-rebutted evidence that the
death of the deceased occurred due to stress and strain during the course of employment.
THE CONCEPT OF NOTIONAL EXTENSION:
The social security system in India is composed of a number of schemes and programs which are
spread throughout a variety of laws and regulations. This system of social security includes
insurance payment of premiums into government funds, pension, gratuity and other employer
obligations. The Employee’s Compensation Act 1923 is one of such legislations which aim at the
social security of the employees. These legislations aims at putting a liability on the employer to
pay compensation to the employees or their families in cases of employment related injuries. In
addition to this, in certain types of employment, the workers are exposed to the risk of
contracting certain diseases which are peculiar to that type of employment. These legislations put
the liability on the employer to pay compensation in cases of occupational diseases.
Section 3(1) of the Workmen Compensation Act, 1923 says that –
“If personal injury is caused to a workman by accident arising out of and in the course of his
employment, his employer shall be to pay compensation in accordance with the provision of this
chapter… ” There are three components in the definition which are – (1) personal injury (2)
accident (3) arising out of and in the course of the employment . This last point is the key of this
section. With advancement in the field of industry, the workmen have become more insecure
with regard to their employment and as a result of that many social security legislation has come
up. This Act is also among them. The judiciary has also realised this purpose of the act and
interpreted the terms widely and gave birth to doctrine of notional extension. It is not easy to
determine what the scope of the term is, and lay down a test to determine what is “arising out of
employment”. There have been many attempts to construct a proper meaning of this term. A lot
of issues have to be considered like the nature, condition, objects and incidents of employment.
“The words “in the course of the employment” mean “in the course of the work which the
workman is employed to do and which is incidental to it.” The words “arising out of
employment” are understood to mean that during the course of the employment, injury has
resulted from some risk incidental to the duties of the service, when, unless engaged in the duty
owing to the master, it is reasonable to believe the workman would not otherwise have suffered.
In other words, it means that there must be a casual relationship between the accident and the
employment. (State of Rajasthan v.Ram Prasad and another). There have been a number of
cases in which the apex courts have tried to take out the true meaning of the term “in the course
of employment” and through these cases, the ambit of the term has been widened. Using these
precedents and the judgment’s laid down by the courts, there is no problem in determining that
accident occurred in the course of employment if he is injured at the workplace and at the
working hours and doing hid duty. The real issue arises when all these elements do not coincide
with each other. What if the workman is injured while he is near the premises of the workplace
or on his way to work? To determine whether the employer is liable to pay the employee in these
circumstances, the theory of notional extension evolved. Earlier, it was generally the rule that the
employment of a workman does not commence until he reached the workplace and comes to an
end as soon as he leaves the workplace. However, now this is subject to the theory of notional
extension as whether to include an area through which the employee passes while going and
leaving his place of work. The doctrine of notional extension provides some reasonable
extension in both time and place in which the employee will be considered to be in the course of
the employment even if he has not reached or left his place of work. It becomes necessary to
examine the facts and the circumstances of each case carefully in order to determine whether the
accident arose out in the course of employment or not. While determining whether the doctrine
of notional extension will be applicable and the accident will be considered to have happened in
the course of employment, it is important to carefully determine the circumstances of each case
and to create a link between the accident that occurred and the employment. It is on the apex
court to understand the facts and situations of the case and decide whether an employee will get
the compensation or not. There was a case in which an employee met with an accident while
travelling in a bus to his place of work. He was not provided with compensation by the
competent authorities. It was held by the apex court that the employee used the bus to travel to
and fro from his place of work and it was necessary to take the bus every day to perform his duty
efficiently and punctually. Therefore, travelling in that bus was an implied condition to his duty
and therefore he was provided with compensation as this was considered to be arising out of the
course of the employment. In another case, where a workman was ordered by his employer to go
to another place for cleaning of the railway track and while coming back, the employee was
crossing the railway track and died, it was observed by Hon’ble Justice Shukla that the accident
occurred in the course of the employment as he was ordered by the employer to go to a particular
place, and hence the employer was liable to pay compensation. There are certain exceptions in
which the doctrine of notional extension will not be applicable. One such exception is when a
workman is on public road or public place, not fulfilling any obligation of his workplace, then if
any accident occurs, he will not be entitled to get compensation. The proximity of the workplace
and the spot of the accident become immaterial in these cases. It is well settled that when a
workman is on a public road or a public place or on a public 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. In later cases, the apex court took a
more liberal stand on expanding the definition of the term notional extension realizing the social
view point and objective of these social welfare legislations . The doctrine of notional extension
is thus applicable even if the workman has not reached his place of work and he is entitled to
compensation in case an accident happens. The judiciary, through its various judgements have
widened the scope of the doctrine of notional extension and this doctrine has been very helpful
for workmen to get proper compensation under the Workmen Compensation Act and the
Employee State Insurance Act. The most recent judgement regarding the doctrine of notional
extension was passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in which it held that the doctrine of notional
extension of employment applies when the accident occurred while the deceased workman was
in workplace not by his own choice . Therefore the scope of the doctrine of notional extension is
not limited and the judiciary through its various judgements keeps expandoing the scope of the
doctrine for the social welfare of the employees.
POSITION OF NOTIONAL EXTENSION IN INDIA
It is about the compensation to the injured worker under the Employee state Insurance act 1948
and Workman compensation act, 1923 .It basically throws a light on the worker working under
the employment. “The rule says that, the worker is said to be working only when he at the work
place and not out of the work place, the worker travelling for job and for any work is completely
excluded. Its .it is said that now a day the worker travelling for the job and for the work is to be
included for in the course of employment. There is a lot of reasonable things in both time and
place even when he does not the place where he /she actually works Here are some facts of the
case which will help us to understand how in the following case what acutely happened and how
the accident arose out of the course of employment of a worker keeping the view in mind the
doctrine of notional extension. Let’s know before knowing the doctrine what is called as a duty?
The court has given wider and clear meaning to explain what is duty and to expand with its
section.in this the court also talks about the service of contract whether it will come under this
preview of section or not. Justice Cozens-Hardy M.R. said that when some agreement t is done
for the service of contract the thing is the charges which is going to happen should be provided
by the employers and not the employee itself. There is case which is explained below which
clearly states a broader sense of duty it is widely scoped and explained.
In Weaver v. Tredegar Iron Coal Co., The judges who sat for listening the case said after
examining the authorities we have seen that the duty can be explained as it has a very wider
meaning but did not neglected the test. In this case it is said that the LORD ATKIN the course of
employment cannot be limited to the time or place of a specific for which the workmen is
actually employed to do so. It does not completely end here even if the down tools signals are
given or from the workshop from he just left. There are some reasonable extensions in both time
and space. For e.g. it is given by Porter it is said that if the accident happens while the worker is
coming to work at its work place or leaving the work place can be out of in the course of
employment if he is bound by the agreement or any term of contract express or implied here
heredity test was examined and lastly it was confirmed. Here is social point of view it is more
liberal and court also took a very liberal stand in expanding the definition of notional extension
realizing the social point of view and the objective of the act. Here the employee died on its way
to while going to its work place because of communal riot. It was said by the appellant that the
person died before the commencement of the work and outside of the workplace. Basically there
is no connection between the accident and employment. As far it is concerned The High Court of
Madras has neglected all this argument and allowed the compensation.
SECTION 3(2): If a workman employed in any course of employment in part contracts any
diseases or any occupational diseases during employment or if a worker is employed by an
employer not less than six months of employment and in this no other service contract should be
made under the employment. As it goes same with part B and Part C. The central government
may say that in the respect of such employment the contracting of the diseases should be and the
injury or an accident caused during then it should be deemed under this section, unless the
contrary is proved and the accident should be arisen during the course of employment. Here if it
is proved:
(a) When a worker is employed and is contracted with any diseases specified under the
occupational disease peculiar to the employment during a continuous period which is less
than the period mentioned in the section for that employment.
(b) That the disease is caused and happened during the course of employment, the disease which
have contracted is said to an injury by accident within the, meaning of this section. If any
disease is caused and is proved that a worker who was served under the employment or
 contract basis and has continuous period as under specified section the disease is said to be
injury by accident within the meaning of this section.
(2A) If a worker is employed in the employment specified under the part of schedule 3 contracts
to any occupational disease peculiar to that employment, the contract is said to be an injury by
accident within the meaning under this section, , and such employment was under more than one
employer, and here all ten employers are liable for the payment of compensation in such a
manner as said by the commissioner may say , and according to the circumstances as it may
deem fit as the situation says.
Here the doctrine of notional extension is not specifically enriched under the Employees State
Insurance Act 1948 or Workmen Compensation Act. The notional Extension is yet to be
amended any one act is to be amended and if any accident happens outside the premises within a
radius of kilometer of the workplace and its working hours it will be considered as an
employment injury. same logic will be applicable for the acts as workmen act and the other.
If the accident happens in the company’s provided vehicle, irrespective of the location and time
it is known as the employment injury as per Employees Compensation Act