7

Workmen's
Compensation Act, 1923
The

enacted during the British

The Workmen's C o m p e n s a t i o n Act, 1923 was
on Labour. Before this
recommendation ofRoyalCommission for compensation
reignbythe compelled to file the petitions
Aot,the
workmen were
time was usually taken for granting the
helore the civil courts Longworkman or the poor dependants
of the deceased
compensationtotheinjured to their rigid
formalities and technicalities.

workman by the civil

courts
due the quasi-judicial
the Act, a speedyremedy is now possible by
By enacting Commissioner.
decision of the
is really the.
Act, 1923unionism first beneficial
The Workmen's Compensation and collective bargain
While the trade
egislation for labour in india. British Government
enacted this statute
the then
Nare in preliminary stage, bereaved families. It is essentially
a
the welfare of labour and their on the
or the entire responsibility
S0Cal-assistance measure", as it places for death, permanent or partial
Employer for the payment of compensation
and temporary disablement of the worker
stated: ".. The growing complexity
Saement and Objects of this Act use machinery and consequent
this country with the increasing of
in workmen
poverty of the
he Workmen, along with the comparative
be protected, as far possIbIe,
as
rendersit advisable that they should that compensation
hardship arising from accidents... The general principle is by
Should rdinarily be given to workmen who sustained personal injuries
cidents arising of employment. Compensation
wi
of and in the course
so be givenOur
in certain limited circumstances for disease..
that "in our
laidmost
down and Objects of the Act
Ountry, where of in the
the Statement
labour population suffers from curse of illiteracy
ty,
the employer,
verty and incapable of entering into legal fight withAct
ecessa
liecessary with a view too See that the provisions of the are strictly
nforced, the issioner must act suo motu (on its own motion)

[131
132 Labour Law- II
The theme in the Workmen's
to the workman who receives Compensation Act is to Dro
partial mcapacity resulting in der seeurity
earning capacity. The protection so aftorded
of Joss nactsin thofe
a

grace or mercy which the employer might show independent

is
to him. In the
a Wel cs
like ours, the protection afforded to a disabled
to rest on the mercies and shown
workman cannot elhe.
fare Sate
grace by the
does so, it is commendable but the workman employer. If the Wed
has still a stake
employment which is guaranteed to him under the Act [V Jovaraiv 0yer or his
Periyar Transport Corpn., 1989 (SC)]. Tha hi
With the progress of time and change the
society, in
the Act has on many occasions been
standards
of livine in
modified so as to he the
greater number of workmen and to provide for payment of benefit
greater amI
of compensationto them. Though
the Act was enacted in
1923, the spirit
the Constitution of India, 1950 is seen in it.
benefit flowing from this Act; it has "Compensation is not the onlv
important effects in furthering work
the prevention of
and in
accidents, giving workmen greater freedom from on
in
anxiety
rendering industry more
attractive"
Major Features of the Act
(1) The Act is modelled on the British
pattern. Under the Act,
of compensation has been made obligatory on all employerspayment
whos
employees are entitled claim benefit under the
to
Act
(2) The various classes of workmen have
been specified in the definition
of workman in Sec. 2(1)(n) and in Schedule IL The definition of
workman given in this Act is very wide than any other labour
legislation. Every person employed by day, week, month or year is
within the definition of 'workman'. Persons employed
administrative or clerical capacity and earning more than Rs. 1,600
per month (except railway servants) were excluded from the benet

of the Act. But now the condition

of monthly wage limt
average
of Rs. 1,600/- has been abolished.
(3) The workman or his dependants may claim compensation the
nury has been caused by accident arising out of and in the cou
O employment. It is not necessary that the accident should nae
been caused by some e of
wrongful act of the employer. n
caim
injurynot resulting in death, the workman could not
compensation if at the time of accident he was under the intue
or
of drink/drugs or if there was wilful disobedience of
disregard of safety devices.
rule/oruc

Report of Royal Commission on Labour in lIndia, p. 298.

 The Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923 133

in Sec.
(4) Compensation IS
payable only when the conditions provided
has been
are fulfilled and thea procedure prescribed by Sec. 10 claim for
adopted in niaking claim to compensation. Any
of the
compensation must be made within 2 years of the occurrence
of the
accident or in case of death within 2 years from the date
death.
amount of compensation payable depends in case of death on
(5) The
the average monthly wages of the deceased workman and in the
case of an injured workman both on the average monthly wages
and the nature of disablement.
for the purposes of this Act includes over-timne
(6) The term "wages
value of any concessions or benefit in the form of
pay, and the
food, clothing, etc.

Whenever the compensation payable to any workman has to be

(7) and then
worked out, first of all his monthly wages are determined
to Sec. 4 and
the amount of compensation is decided by reference
Schedule IV.
the Commissioner (a quasi-judicial
(8) The Act is administered by State
authority) for Workmen's Compensation appointed by the
Govermment. He is empowered to grant immediate relief.
o r a court in the
(9) A Commissioner is a tribunal and not a civil court
to appeal to the High
technical sense. Sec. 30 of the Act gives right
for a limited purpose
Court from the order of the Commissioner
only.
to arrive at a
(10) In default of agreement between the parties
an
the
conclusion in respect of any claim to compensation,
the question as
Commissioner has jurisdiction to decide inter alia,
the liability of any
to whether a person injured is a workman;
person to pay compensation;
the amount and duration of
extent of disablement.
compensation; and, the nature or

Dependants under the Act

the dependants of an employe
c 20Xd) of the Act clearly defines who are
in case of the death of a
worker.
A resolves conflicts that may arise
t the division
rding to this section, there are three categories of dependants;
based upon the natural human love and affection.
(i) ne First category dependants are a widow, a minor legitimate or
-

adopted son, an unmarried legitimate or adopted daughter, and, a

in law as dependants of a
Widowed mother. They are deemed of the
the earnings
workman whether they are in fact dependent
on

Workman or not.
 Labour Law- Il
134
a son or
The Second category
(ii) of daughter
dependants
18 years or above. In order to claim compensation,
are
of t.

must bewholly dependent on the e they must

infirm and they ings of the
workman at the time of his death.
dependants are (they should be whl
the holly or in
(ii The Third category
the earnings of the workman at the
part dependent on
time of h
death) his
(a) a widower,
b) parent other than a widowed mother,
a

(c) a minor illegitimate son, an unmarried illegitimate dauoh.

daughter legitimate/illegitimate/adopted if married and aghter,
mi a
or if widowed and a minor, ninor,
(d) a minor brother or an unmarried sister or a widowed sister it
tif
a minor,
(e) a widowed daughter-in-law,
( a minor child of a pre-deceased son,
a minor child of a pre-deceased daughter (where no parent of
the child is alive), or
(h) a
paternal grand parent (if no parent of the workman is alive).
Explanation - For the purposes of sub-cl. (i) and items () and (g) of sub-
cl. (iii), references to a son,
daughter or child include an adopted son.
daughter or child
respectively.
Dependency is
question of fact. Therefore, where a person claims
a

compensation dependant of the deceased workman, he must estabIls

as a
that he is a
dependant within the meaning of Sec. 2(1)(d). The questiono
payment of compensation is conditioned by such claimant being wholly
in part
dependent upon the
include all the heirs of a earnings
of the workman.
Dependant
workman but only those who, to somedoestent,
depend upon him. Kinship coupled with ex
for a person to fall dependency is made the sole cr
within the ambit of the definition
Habeebullah v Periaswami AIR of dependant
1997 Mad. 390]
Under Sec. 2(1Md),
However, there is no relations of a workman are divided into uthreetoclas
compensation. The preferential right amongst dependan
clain

the that those

sense dependants
are
not classified in different categor
specified First
India Insur ance Co. Lid, in
category will exclude
belonging to any
v Man
Singh, 1984I LLJ 186 (M.P)I. D nendanls
of category may claim simultaneously. AlSo,
compensation
1959 Amendment to
has been
provided for adult and minor unuca the Act v
the Act.
The Act takes into
existence at the timeconsideration only those
thal
in ations and facts
of death of a workman. situations anu do o
Subsequen
 The Workmen's
Compensation Act, 1923 137

v Southern Railway, I
980 LLJ 395 (Ker.), the court
in N a r a y a nthat licensed porters were not in any of the categories
Aga fact that
heldthat.the
mere
no
ll of the Act does not disentitle a porter from being
in Schedule
mentioned
orkman under Sec. 2(1(n)i)if he is a railway servant. The licensed
only the luggage of the passengers but also the
handle n o t
are to
porters
the custody of the railway. Therefore, there is a
and luggage in
parcels
employer and employee
between the railway administration
ationship of
licensed porters.
and the
the definition workman it is clear that there must be relationship
of
From a person can be said to be a workman. A
employer
and employee before
of
of
be express or implied, oral or
nployment may in writing.
Mere
contract
or is not sufficient to constitute a
vice', etc.
of terms*wages
and employee. Any person who vol1ntarily assists
plationship of employer
not a workman. So also an independent
contractor is not a
another man is
contract under which a workman is employed is illegal it
workman. If the Act.
of service within the Workmen's Compensation
would not be a contract
and workman is established if the employer
The relationship of employer the employee
control and could regulate the action of
has some measure of An
in doing his work (Contract of service').
during the time he is engaged in the pursuit of an independent business,
independent contractor" is one who, without submitting himself to
undertakes to do specific work for other person
work ('Contract for service'). A
his control in respect of the details of the
workman agrees himself to work (though he may get some other persons also
to work.
to work along with him) and agrees to get other persons
a contractor
and
The Act has not made any distinction between the driver in govenment
a
2001
v Ram Chander Pradhan,
TO-gOvemment employment. In Sunil Industries succeed in his claim under the
55 (SC), it was held that for a workman
to
should
Orkmen's Compensation Act, 1923, it is not necessary that the workman
Factories Act, 1948.
EWorking ina'factory as defined under the
Durden shall be upon the claimant to prove that 'workman
he was a

the onus would be on the

hl netomeaning of Sec. (2 n). However, for the purpose ol
e r prove that the condition, which is necessary
excluding a person from the category of workman, exists.

Disablement under the Act

a) Partial Disablement
Sec. It is of two kinds
mpora(Mg) of the Act defines "partial
disablement".

parttal disablement', if the earning capacity of a workman is

2. Write as
2006)
3 Writa note on: Contract
ofservice and contract for service. [LC.-
ite a shortnote on: Total and partial disablements. [C.L.C.-2001/2002/2004]
 Labour Law- Il
138
he had been at the tin
the employment
reduced in relation to e of the
partial
resulting in the
disablement reduces
disablement; permanent

his earning capacityin

at that time.
every employmer
Provided that every which
sablementen ', ,ac oden
if
he wo
capable of undertaking result injury
b e deemed to result in perma
speci
Part 11 of ScheduleTshall ent yaria
disablement.
The dictionary meaning ofthe word disable is 'to depDrive.
strength or power, physical or mentalto injure so as to no long
oi competen
be fin lo
'incomplete, somefn
be

certain duties or services The word partial' means

opposing total. par

The test of partial disablement is the reduction in the earning ca
ing apacty
saheb Makasah
of the workman and not his earnings.n Balasaheb Makasaheb
Mohanlal Shah (1983) TAC 649 (Bom.). the workman sufered e
permanent partial disability, and was proved by medical and other eviz
But, when his case came before the Commissioner, he could not prove loss
of earnings. The Commissioner rejected his claim for compensation T
Bombay Hligh Court reversed the decision of Commissioner, holding the
Sec. 2(1)(g) contemplates the loss or reduction in the earning capacityad
not the loss or reduction in earnings.
Loss of earning capacity or the extent of it is a question of fact Itha
to be determined by taking into account the diminution or destructionof
physical capacity as disclosed by the medical evidence and then it has tobe
seen to what extent such diminution or destruction would reasonablybe
taken to have disabled the affected workman from performing the dis
which a workman of his class ordinarily performs. However, the loss of
physical capacity is not co-extensive with Ioss of earning capacity {Calcuo
Licensed Measures Bengal Chamber of Commerce v Ma. Hossian Alk
1969 Cal. 378). There are no arithmetical calculation and relation Derc
the amount of disability and the amount of diminution in eaming capau
[P.E. Davis & Co. v Kesto Routh, 1968 (SC)].
Keduction in earming capacity has necessarily to be a notional igure
which it is not possible for the workman to give precise factual evidence.In i
this notional assessment of loss in ossible
employment is the task
earning acity with regard to every erfor
of the judge who, in such cases is the Commissione
bleto
the Workmen's Compensation. In certain cases, of course, it may be poss
siblethat
adduce some evidence on facts to help the assessment. But it is not p
the basiso
assesspient of such a notional loss can always be madeIpurely onRamNash
factuál evidence.. there is noprecise yardstick to measure this lo
Singh v Lodhana Colliery Co. Lid, 1973 (SC)J manen

c C) provides for the amount of compensation wherc

partial disablement results from the injury: rcentage

(i)In the case of an injury specified in Part ll of ScheduleI, such perce

ofthe compensation which would have been payabi
 The Workmen's Compensation Act. 1923 139
anent tota
ermanent total disablement as is specificd therein as being the
P n a e of
percentage of the
the loss of earning capacity caused by that injury.
case

Inthe of an injury not specified in Schedule I, such percentage of

ease
(i) thecompensation payable in the case of permanent total
disablement as
is oportionate to the loss of earning capacity (as assessed by the qualified
edical practitioner) permanently caused by the injury. The medical
ctitioner shall have due regard to the
percentage of loss of earming
capacity in relatic to different injuries specified in Schedule I.
Where more injuries than one are caused by the same accident, the amount
fcompensation payable under Sec. 4(1)(c) shall be aggregated but not so
ofc exceed the amount which would
so as to
case have been payable if
any
inermanent total lisablement had resulted from the injuries.

Mustrative Case Law

() A rise in wages is not decisive of any loss of earning capacity. Orne

might be earning the same amount, or even more, despite a reduction
in one's capacity to earn because one's earning is affected bya
number of factors other than the one's capacity to earn [See, Calcuta
LicensedMeasures case aboveThus, wages and actual earning are
not relevant for the determination of disablement or the nature of it.
(2) Once the reduction or loss in earning capacity is established, the
workman is entitled to compensation even if he is earning the same
wages as he did before the injury [Rukeyabai v George D' Cruz
AIR 1961 Ker. 108]
(3) Where a workman suffered an injury by accident which did not in
fact reduce his capacity to work but stamped him with a visible
mark of physical deficiency/deformity as dissuade the likely
mployers from employing him (i.e. makes his labour unsaleable or
less saleable in any market reasonably accessible to him) he would
be deemed incapacitated for work in the sense that his earning
capacity would clearly be altogether destroyed [Sukhai v Hukum
Chand Jute Mills Lid. AIR 1957 Cal. 601].
Ball vWilliam Hunt (1912) A.C. 496, the workman was blind of his one
he defect was not visible. Later,he suffered an employment injury
Conng in removal of the-eyeball of the injured eye. He could not in
e n c e of this visible physical defect get employment although he Was
OfhyCapable of doing any job which he could do before the occurrence
Be Wordent. It was held that incapacity for work" includes 'inability to
Capacity for workis not same thing as 'incapacity to work.*
l
employmentais case, the workman lost
injury. Held that
vision-less eyeball
a
anaue to

if the actual and present earning capacity

even

4.
question based on the similar facts. [C.LC. 2005)
 140 Labour Law- I

of a workman is not affected by the injury in question, the court ca.

make a 'suspensory award if the future earning capacity of theStil
worker is likely to be reduced. The matter is adjourned, but tho"red
other related issues are decided tua
quantum of compensation and en the
takes place.
actual reduction of earning capacity
(4) Where a workman got injured while working and the emnl.
offered him an alternative employment
but the work
orkman refus ployer
and claimed compensation for "total disablement", it was held
the nature of disablement suffered by him (viz. loss of one eva. nat
and
the teeth) would come under "partial permanent disability more
so in view of the fact that the employer himself had offered hima
job [General Manager G.RP Raihways, Bombagy v Shankar AlR
1950 Nag. 201].
(5) The percentage of the loss of earning capacity stated against the
injuries in Part I of ScheduleI is only the minimum, and not the
maximum. The maximum is left to the discretion of the
Commissioner [Samir U. Parikh v Sikander Zahiruddin, 1984 (SC)]
(b) Total Disablement
According to Sec. 2(10). "Total disablement means such disablement,
whether ofa temporary or permanent nature, as incapacitates a workman for
all work which he was capable of performing at the time of the accident
resulting in such disablement. Provided that the permanent total disablement
shall be deemed to result from every injury specified in Part I of Schedule
I or from any combination of injuries specified in Part lI thereotwherethe
aggregate percentage of the loss of earning capacity, as specified in the said
Part II against those injuries, amounts to 100% or more
Part I of the Schedule I enunciates the list of injuries, which come into
permanent total disablement
) Loss of both hands or amputation at highersites.
i) Loss of a hand and a foot
(ii) Doubleamputation through leg orthigh, amputation through leg or
thigh on one side and loss of other hand.
(iv) Loss of sight to such an extent as to render the claimant unable to

performany work for which eyesight is essential.

(v) Very severe facial disfigurement.
(vi)Absolutedeafness.
Inloss.totalIn disablement, the worker's earning capacity is calculated at100%
other words, there must be incapacity for all work resultin
100%loss of earning capacity.
 The Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923 141
arkman cannot get employment for any work he can undertake, it
workman cannot

uld
1fa wonermanent disability. However, the expression incapacity for
be
wouledaes not mean any and every Work which a workman may do but
all work
means s u c h
work as is reasonably capable of being sold in the market. In
words,
other it does not mean capacity to
words, it work or physical incapacity. The
with physical injury
concerned with as such, or with the mere effect
Act is ne

injury on thephysical
system of the workman. It is concerned only
ofithsuch
of the effect of such
injury or of the diminution of physical power caused
of the affected workman i.e. to what extent
on the earning capacity
thereby,
diminution could reasonably
be taken to have disabled the workman
ch
the duties which workman ofhis class ordinarily performed
S u c h

a
fromperforming the paid for such duties [Kalidasv
andfrom earning normal remuneration
AlR 1957 Cal. 660].
SK. Mondal
in the workman
Where there is no longer any earning power remaining
whatever may be his physical power to perform a duty in
who was injured
so long as no one could be persuaded to offer him
any sphere of activity,
his apparent physical defects) the incapacity
any such employment (1n view of
Co. v Usman Khan, 1966 I LLJ
is incomplete [Canara Public Conveyance
of the injuries the workman is capable
826]. Further, it may be that in view
but still when there is incapacity
enough to render some other sort of work,
to do the work, which he was capable
of performing by the date of the
Assurance Co. Ltd. v
accident, it is a case of total disablement [National
Mohd. Saleem Khan 1992 II LLJ 377 (A.P.)].
and loss of physical
The certificate of the doctor of physical impairment The
question of total disablement.
function is not material in deciding the for extent
medical opinion but the
5 of earning capacity is not a matter medical officer in relation
IS a question of fact. Likewise, the opinion of
0 T but not conclusive. It is for the
ernative employment is only suggestive,
Counk e into consideration the nature of injury (as disclosed by the
was capable
evidence), the nature of the work which the workman
07
undertaking and its availability to him. alternative
the workman in any other
loyer's willingness to employ extent of
nl determination of the
employment ay have some relevance in
LLJ 31 (Bom.)]. Thus,
where
disablement
an
med Abdul v Sahgal, 1966 II him
rendered
if his injury
mployee discharged by
was
for any kind
employer as
the
there was total
disablement.
i s clear proof that
The explanation of work,it
by the employerthat
there no other
was
employment
offered employer to
possible available could not accep
be accepted. It would be for the
iured I the
In absence

of such suggest itable employment for the injured employee.

employee.
evidence
employee to produce
was unnecessary for the could
nat he went
ent ffrom search of employment but
nd one place to another in
plac v Ratnam,
1956
none Gold Mines Co.
LLJ 20)agreeable to employ-him
" [Hutti
142 Labour Law- lI

Distinction between Partial and Total

Disablement
Both total and partial disablement has reference to
eaming
definition of 'partial disablement' there is direct reference capacit
to thethe
capacity of the workman while in the case of total disablement iti.ng
to in the case injuries. In the case of scheduled erTed
of scheduled
disablement is partial or total accordingly as the total percentaoe
them together is less than or equal to 100%. In total
disablement, the uo
earning capacity is calculated at 100% loss.
A workmen, if after an accident, unable to
performm his duty, and ha
incapacitated for all work, which he was capabie ot perfoming at the time
of the accident, the disablement is total. If the accident
reduces workman'
capacity in any employment in which he was engaged at the time of the
accident, or even if the disablement is of a permanent nature. the
does no more than to reduce his disablememt
earning capacity in
which he was capable of undertaking at the time of every employ ment
the accident such
disablement is partial, and not total
In a case, a bus-driver was involved in an accident which
resulted in an
impairment of free movement of his left hand
disabling him from driving
vehicles. The question arose whether it was partial or total disablement.
is the general principle that, where a worker met an It
accident losing one
limb, he is entitled to claim compensation under the items
Il of Schedule I (Permanent specitied in Part
partial disablement).
hands or loss of a hand and a foot, he is entitled to
In case of loss of both
claim under the items
specified in Part I of Schedule 1 (Total permanent disablement) Not: to the
Schedule I says that complete and
permanent loss of the use of
member referred to in this Schedule shall be deemed to be the any
mb or
the lass of that limb or member. Even if the equivalent of
limb is not
lost, but it becomes totally unusable, it means "loss" actually phy sicaly
and
within the meaning o
Schedule .
Now,
in this case, losing the free movement of left-hand of a driver does
not allow him in driving. For a
driver, two hands and two legs are compulso
The driver's left-hand can be treated as
the loss of limb by virtue of the o
appended to Schedule I. Thus, the driver is entitled to compensation for
total disablement. In
Pratap Narain hand above
LLJ 235 (SC), a carpenter lost his leftSingh
Dev v Shrinivas Sabata 17t
the elbow. It was held u
as a carpenter cannot work with one
hand, his disablement is total.

eAdt
5 Delineate the distinction between Partial and Total
disablements u 20051
 Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923 143
The

arising
out of Employment: Employer's Liability
Accident

liability
liab compensation')
for is the most important section
Employer's
(Employer's

to pay compensation is limited and

liability of an employer Under
3
Sec.
Act.
Act.
The liabilit
The Sec. 3(1), the employer's
of the
of the provisions of the Act.
upon the following four conditions:
S u b j e c t t o

is
ability is dependent
liability
been caused to a workman;
Personal
must
injury have
caused by an accident;
Such injury must have been
The accident must have arisen out of and
in the course of
employment; and
have resulted either in death of the workman or in
iv) The injury must
for a period exceeding three days.
his total or partial disablement
the phrase "arising
Sec. 3 reflects
the object of the Act, and more particularly,
reflects the intention of the framers. It
out of and in course of employment'
of the Act. The accident which resulted in
the
is the foundation principle
have connection with the employment
and must arise
injury or death, must the rights of the workers and
out of it The phrase is intended safeguard
to
the inherent object is to provide the
their families, and at the same time, accident
The employer is liable only if the
protection to the employers. He shall not be liable otherwise.
arises out of and in course of employment.
to similar extent.
Therefore, it saves employees and employers
mean only physical or bodily injury
but includes
does
Personal
a mental injury. The basicnot
injury' and indispensable ingredient of the "accident is the
untoward event, etc. brought about
unexpectation any unexpected mishap, could not be provided against.
by Some unanticipated or undesigned act which
he phrase "arising out of and in course of employment" means "during
risk incidental
e Course of the employment injury has resulted from some the
e duties of the service which, unless engaged in
the duty owing to
otherwise have
as the workman would not
reasonable to believe
of employment in the
ered The words out of and in the course Justice Frank
used conjunctively, and not disjunctively. Mr.
M aVe the
been this phrase as
O Supreme Court of United States described
deceptively simple and litigiously prolific."
6. to a workman
Sufferi San employer become liable to pay compensation thee
the provisions of
by an accident under
Workm rsonal injury caused
Workmen's Compensation Act? [C.L.C-2002/2006]
to the injured
Ders men's Compensation Act. 1923 provides compensation
the conditions which are required to be fulfilled for claiming9
the saiIsCUss
said compen
ensation. Support your answer with decided cases.
L.C.-2002/2004/2005
cplain the law out of and in the
of employment" with the
help of decided "Injury arising
course
[L.C.-2006)
cases
144 Labour Law- Il

The expression "arising out of suggests the cause

acei of
expression "in the course of points out to
placethe ident and the
under which the accident takes place and the and
time when itCircums
causal connection or association between the
employment is necessary. The onus is on the claima injury by a
arose out of and in the course of
mant to
prove dent and
that :
LId v Smt. Felicidade, AIR 1970 employment
Goa 127].
[Ms Chov howgule &acciCo dPem
There are 1three tests to determine whether ah
and in the course of employment. They are accident hass arisen
arisen oul o
(that the workman was in fact employed on
accident duties at the tima
(ii) that accident occurred the
at place of performance of his
and dutier
(iii) that the immediate act which
the sphere of his duties to belead to accident is not so remote from
Some other guidelines in this regarded as songc thing forevgn
regard are
(1) The employment should' ve
given rise to the circumstances of injury
by accident. But a direct connection
essential. Arising out of the between the two not alwaysis

employment does not

injury must' ve resulted from th.: mere nature of mean that persurad
also not limited to cases where the cmployment and s
the duties which the workman has personal injury relerable 19
b

lo dischargq [Central Glag

dndustries v Abdul Hussain AlR 1948 Cal 12
(2) If the accident had occurred on
account of a risk which is an
of the employment (i.e. some risk incidental to the duticsuncide ot
service), claim for compensation must succeed unless of
the
the
workman has exposed himself to do an "added peril ceu by
owninprudence [MMackenzievEM Isak AlR
1970s
Thephrase applies to employment as such, to its natu
conditions, its obligations and its incidents and if by reason
of
these, a workman is brought within the zone of special d
and so injured or killed, the Act would apply [Nawab Aliv Hunn
Jute Mills AIR 1933 Cal. 513]
(4) The question that should be considered is whether the workr
was required or
accident though be
expected to do the thing which resulted in the dore

might have imprudently or disobedien

the same. ln other words, was the act which resuited in tnc
though during the period of the employment) outside
of the duties with which the
so
entrusted as to
tht
workman
the accident did not arise out of
was ent
Aodur
y
[Smi.
Palongi tchamma,
his
1969 Lab. LC. 1415
employmentAn eCeived

within reasonable limits of (A.P)]. injuris ins

satisi
time and space, such as whlie
 The Workmen's Compensation Act.
1923 145

bodily needs, taking food or drink is to be regarded as

ehirst or
in the course of employment [AIR 1968 Cal. 1291.
iniury received
Mustrative Case Law

Where the workman died while carrying the goods of his employer
due to floods in the way (the workman's lorry got struck in the
verflowing bridge), the employer was heldliableto pay compensation
v Dsari
Ravuri Kotayya the Nagavardhanamma 42].
AIR 1962 A.P.
Similarly, where workman died due to natural lightning while
working at the site, it was held that it is no doubt true that the
accident must have causal connection with the employment and arise
out of it, and, natural force of lightning though in itself has no
connection with employment, but the deceased would not have been
exposed to such hazard of lightning had he not been working so.
Therefore, the employer was liable to pay compensation [State of
Rajasthanv Ram Prasad (2001) I LLJ 177 (SC)1.
(ii) Where the
(i) szfeguard the employer's
workman with an intention to
property, chased two thieves,
and while doing so he died, the
employer was held liable to pay compensation [Gurunath & Appa
The
Rao Co. Ltd y Ginni Gannemma, 1980 ACJ 458 A.P.].
employee's act was incidental to the duties, and, thus it could not
be called 'foreign' to the employment.
ship found missing and on inspection of
(iii) Where a seaman on was

the ship no material evidence was found which could lead to the
inference that the death was caused by an accident arising out o
seaman's employment, it was held that no compensation was payable
in this case [M. Mackenzie v IM. Issak AIR 1970 SC 1906]. Where
the employee was injured while he was playing in the playground
of the factory, it was held that the employer was not liable as there
no causal relation between the accident and the employment
was
Central Glass Industries v Abdul Hussain AIR 1948 Cal. 12].
(V)Where the workmen, working in some factory are injured due to
person), it will be
explosion of bombs (placed by some unknown
injury resulting from an accident arising out of employment,
as
an
the workmen are exposed to that danger by reason of their presence
Similar would
on the place of accident because of their employment.
DE the case where a workman who was employed to repair clocks
at various stations was stabbed in a railway compartment while he
stabbed by rival
was in transit. Likewise, a workman who was his
up within the premises of the employer, after completing
duty, entitled to compensation.
was
ere the workman was not concerned with the operation of a
save the
Cular machine, but he stopped it with an intention to he
electricity as it was running unnecessarily, and in doing so was
 The Workmen's
(vii) uhere the
Compensation Act, 1923
and the hut
workman was residing in 147
has caught fire
the and provided by the
a hut
no
nexus with workman
the employer by employment. The died, it was heldemployer. that fire
omnensation. The
itself cannot accommodation
form
in the course of employer is not liable asbasis for a provided
claim for
by
employment
Krishana Rao, 1995 accident did not
II LLJ .New India Insurance occur
1041 (Ori.)1. Co. Lid. v G.
Doctrine of Notional Extension of
Sec. 3(1) uses the word
"employment Employment"
ermwork'. The latter is limited The term
'employment' is
only; the wider than
limited to the work-spot to to the
nublic places also.
the or work-spot former is not
employer's premises, it extends
Therefore, the
employment' is not limited to the phrase arising out of and in the to the
nremises, but may also extend to accidents
the
which may occur in
the
course of
employer liable
to pay compensation.
outer sphere of
his employer's
extension of employment' This is called area, and makes the
'doctrine of notional
Ithas been recognised
employment is not time and again that the
necessarily
work. If in going to or limited to the actual sphere of a workman's
is part of his coming from his work he hasplace where he does his
he is going to employer's to use an access
premises, or which he is entitled to traverse which
or
coming from his work, he
is held to be
because
on his master's
7. What do you mean by "Theory of notional extension
purposes of determining the
of
employment' for the
Compensation liability of employer under the Workmen's
an
Act, 1923? Discuss and
support your answer with decided cases.
A was
employed as a with a company. His duty was toL.C.I- 2001/2003]
work and also to deliverpeon attend the office
mail to the clients outside the office.
ing to office from his house he met with an accident as a result One day, while
aed. widow claimed compensation under the Workmen's
'A's of which he
Discuss and decide. Compensation Act.
IS employed as a driver with a company. He has made a IC.L.C.- 2001]
private arrangement
h e Manager of the company by virtue of which 'A' does the domestic work
e house of the Manager in lieu of rent-free accommodation. One
ing, while 'A' was taking the children of the day, early
Nanys vehicle, he met with an accident as aManager
to the in
the school
result of which he died. 'A's
Deciaimed compensation under Sec. 3 of the Workmen's Compensation Act.
[C.L.C- 2004)
n the first case, 'A's widow can claim compensation under the Act, as 'A'
ue to anaccident arising out of and in the course of employment. In
to th the
ase, "A's widow will not succeed, as 'A' was rendering personal service
A Manager of the company for the personal benefit of the Manager. Thus,
the death could not
doctrine
be aid to be caused in the course of employment; also,
of notional extension of
employment is inapplicable in such case.)
 Labour Law- ||
148
brian
business while he
is using that
access

Times L.R. 568].

Northumbrian Shinr
pping Co. Lid N
Mecullum (1932) 48
doctrine of notional extension
to the
The principles relating
have been aptly
described in the
below-discussed case
mploymen
LEADING CASE:
SAURASHTRA MANUFACTURING
SALT MANUFACTURING CO. V
V BA
BAI VALU RAJA
RA
(AIR 1958 SC 881)
Facis and Issue
-
In this case, a workman employed in a saltu
work had to go bya nuk
while returning home after fingshing his
path, then through a sandy area in the open public and finally
across a creek through a femy boat. Ihe iemy Doat capsized duet
bad weather and the workman was drowned. The dependants ofthe
decreased workman applied for compensation. The Commissioner
found that the accident arose out o1 and im the course of employment
and applied notional extension to the employer's premises. The
decision of the Commissioner. Before the
High Court upheld the that the accident did not
Supreme Court, the main contention was
arise out of and in the course of employment and also notional
extension theory would not apply to the accident.
Observations and Decisions The Apex Court laid down the
following principles:
(1)As a rule, the employment of workman does not
commence until he has reached the place of
employment and does not continue when he has left
the place ofemploymeht, the journey to and from the
place of employment being excluded
(2) h is now well-settled, however, that this rule issubject
to the theory of notional extension of the employers
workman
premises so as to include an area which the
passes and re-passes in going to and in leaving the
actual place of work. There may be some reasonable
extensionin both time and place and a workman m2y
be regarded as in the course of his employment even
s
thoughhe had not reached or had left his employer case
premises. The facts and circumstances of each
will have to be examined very carefully in order to
determine whether the accident arose out of and in tne

course of the employment of a workman, keeping

View at all times this theory of national extensio
(3) When a workman is on a public road or a public pliae
or on a public
transport he is there as any other mei
of the public and is not there in the course of ni

employment unless the very nature of his employmen

 The Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923 149

makes it necessary for him to be there. The proximity

of the place of accident to the place of employment is
irrelevant for this purpose. Even the notional extension
of the place of employment terminates when the
workman reaches a public road where the members of
public have a right to exercise whatever right they
have [Commrs. for Port of Calcutta v Kaniz Fatema
AIR 1961 Cal. 310].
(4) A workman is not in the course of his employment
from the moment he leaves his house and is on his
way to his work. He certainly is in the course of his
employment if he reaches the place of work or a point
or an area which comes within the theory of notional
extension, outside of which the employer is not liable
to pay compensation for any accident happening to
him.
the case the accident
The Supreme Court held that on the facts of
arisen of and in the course of
could not be said to have out
the theory of
employment while crossing the creek inasmuch as the boat
where
notional extension could not extend to the point
capsized.]J
In Dedhiben Dharamshi v New Jehangir Vakil Mills Co. Ltd. (AIR 1976 SC
The employee along
1250), the shift of the company would start at 3.30 p.m. to attend his duties
with his co-workers were approaching the company gate
at 3.20 p.m. While they were about 10-15 feet away
from the gate, a motor
who died on the spot. It was
cyclist came speedily and dashed the worker, under
held that the accident arose out of and in the course of employment
the doctrine of notional extension of employment.
I LLJ 472 (Bom.), a
InJ.E Pareira v Eastern Watch Co. Ltd., 1985 a few minutes
in the on the ground floor sought
4iEsman working company
found unconscious in the third
Emission to go out. Subsequently, he was was held that while
building and died in hospital. It on duty a
or the
WOrkman can be out for smoke or to visit conveniences or to enjoy a cup

8. [C.L.C.-2002]
Aquestion based on the similar facts.
located in Great Nicobar.
Ae mployed as a fisherman in a s e a food industry
towards the sea shore to
catch
feh &rter the muster rolls he was headingof his work and while he was at a
dieerore he could reach the actual place away by the killer Tsunami waves.
H o 10 metres therefrom, 'A' was swept in the family, claimed
CO His unmarried daughter, the sole survivor
there. under Sec. 3 of the Workmen's Compensation Act. Decide.
pensation
[C.L.C-2005]
 150 Labour Law- Il

of tea. So long as he does not go out

for his personal or on a f .
own, he would be deemed to be on the employ
extension of the "premises" and accident to him shall by the
1all be deemedc
premises frolic of k
the course of
employment. deemed te notionma
arise in
T.N.C.S. Corpn. Lid. v Poomalai (1995) LLR 63
In
murdered
in communal riot while he was Mad a
was
proceeding workn
to his Wl
from his house. The Madras High Court held that
the had ari
death
of and in the course of employment because had the arisen ou
house, he would not have been killed in the riot. In workman not i
v N.K.
Shah, 1993 III LLJ 611 (Guj.), there were Natwarsingh Ch
situated in the compound near the textile unit of the certain water pumps
pump belonged to the Municipality. The workman employer. The w
sustained
the water pump while
It was held that the
attending some miscellaneous work ofinjuries due to
the comany
employer was liable to pay compensation.
In Rajanna v Union
of India, 1995 II LLJ 824 (SC), a security
Group (SPG) sustained injuries in a motor assistant
in the Special Protection
when he was travelling from staff accident
official SPG vehicle quarters to the South Block for
duty in the
provided
Tribunal rejected his claim
for that purpose. The Central
Administrative
(an ex gratia payment in accordance with a
Circular) on the ground that the injuries were not sustained while
actual VIP security duty". The performin:
in the official SPG vehicle in Apex
Court held that since he was travelling
which he was
quarters to the South Block, that vehicle not required
to travel from the stalf
than the SPG being available to anyone other
personnel the security assistant was at a
place or a pont
area which came within
the theory of notional extension of the or an
premises for the performance of "actual offical
between the accident in which the duty". There was a causal relationship
and his security assistant sustained the injures
employment in the SPG for actual
duty". Therefore it was
be an accident
arising out of and in the course of employment. held
However, where the employee sustained injuries while taking a
route which was
quite far and circuitous, it was held that the employer difrerc
liable for compensation. It was held that the doctrine of notional exte
applies when a person is either going to or to the
place of work. In this case the coming from his resiaen not
normal Steel employee adopted a route wibanhal as

Authority of India Ltd., Rourkela Plant v Kancn

Mohanty, 1994 II LLJ 1167 (Ori.)].
Transport Facilities by Employer and
Notional Extension
The doctrine the
of notional extension has been extended to
where

casesaes
employer provides or
agrees to pay full or a portion of transport cta
transport facilities.
 Workmen Compensation Act, 1923 157
The

Not
WhenEimployer Not Liable (Defences to Employer)
lover
certain exceptions to the employer's liability
Sec. 3(1) gives
to Sec.
proviao are:
*compensartion.
Ihese

ir
injuriesin respect of any injury which does not result in
Minor
the total
or partial disablement of the workman for a period
exceeding three days.
in death (or permanent total disablement)
Any injury,not resulting
attributable to following:
caused by an accident directly
workman is under the influence of drink or
Drunkard -If the
drugs at the time of employment.
Wilful disobedience If the workman willfully disobeys
an
)
framed, for the
expressly given, or to a rule expressly
order
of workmen.
purpose of securing the safety
(ii) Intentional removing of safety guard-If the workman removes
or other device
which he knows
or disregard any safety guard
of securing the satety of
to have been provided for the purpose
workmen.
to an employer
lt may be noted that the last three defences are not available
workman due to an
total disablement of
n
respect of death or permanent
accident. does not mean
or carelessness
negligence, contributory negligence plaintiff
Mere contributory negligence ofthe
Witul disobedience'. At
common law, of the defendant
defence to an action for damages for negligence to
4 Complete that when both the parties are equally
ne underlying principle being
other liable).
"Wilful" suggests
that disobedience

neither can held the act on the spur of the

and not a thoughtless
berate and intentional is not sufticient.
Oment. Thus, mere disobedience
it was held that an
(AIR 1950 Ori. 207),
Padam Debi v Raghunath an accident was
n from the liability simply because have
mployer cannot escape driving. The driver (workman) might
negligent tree be said
used by rash and with a cannot

but dashing of the vehicle some

en in excessive speedwith any previous design. An "accident'there
means

O have been brought though may be

without design _even
event happening suifers from it.
Once it is proved that
unexpected who
egligence on the workman's part

celebrate its Silver Jubilee organized

in order to o
of a company, employee of the company
11. The m a n a g e m e n t OT
s empoyees, 'A, an
for entertainment thereafter left for his home.
a function of On
liquor out i s ocasion and board a bus,
consumed a
bottle
r o a d s just
utside the gate of factory in order to
the His widow claimed compensation
While rossing a c c i d e n t and died on the spot,
met
an
with Act. Decide [C.L.C.-2006)
he Compensation
the Workmens' D o c t r i n e of Added Peril,
discussed below.]
under
under
the vthe 'Doctrine
see
the
Also
(Hint: