Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Workmen Compensation
Workmen Compensation
Workmen's
Compensation Act, 1923
The
[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
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.
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.
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
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
4.
question based on the similar facts. [C.LC. 2005)
140 Labour Law- I
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
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
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
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
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
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