Moot Court Cases

Case No: 1
 Facts of the Case:
1. Chandan Kumar Subera a watchman in Swastik Chemicals ltd. for 10
years.
2. Company awarded him two times 10,000 rupees for protecting the
theft of the company.
3. On 14th August he completed his duties at 11:45 pm.
4. Chandan got murdered and found at 2 am.
5. The incident took place in “Company premises”.

 Issues Involved:
1. Whether Murder of Watchmen arose out of and In the course of the
Employment and whether it is an Accident.
2. Whether Widow is entitled to Compensation.
3. Whether employer is liable to pay Compensation.
4. Whether the applicant widow proved that the accident that the murder
of the watchmen while he was on duty.
5. How much Compensation to be awarded if any.

 List of Evidences submitted:

1. Exhibit 1- Medical certificate and Post-mortem Report- Not under
influence of alcohol and died due to struggle and stabbing.
2. Exhibit 2- Reward Certificate for protecting the company property.
3. Exhibit 3- Salary Slips – Shows Continuous service for 10 years.
4. Exhibit 4- Bank Slip – States the amount of reward credited in
Chandan Kumar Subera’s bank account by company.
5. Exhibit 5 -Statement of Police Inspector- The investigating officer of
the jurisdiction.
6. Exhibit 6 -Contract of Employment.
7. Exhibit no 7 - FIR Copy
8. Exhibit no 8 - Standing order copy –
9. Exhibit no 9 - Warning letters issued to Chandan kumar
10.Exhibit no 10. Bills of Shakuntala Bar& Restaurant
 Arguments on the Behalf of Management :
1. Management strongly objected the claim application of widow
(watchmen).
2. It was submission that the watchmen was having habit of drinking and
abusing the seniors.
3. On said date and time he was not on duty.
4. Therefore accident didn’t arise out of and in the course of
employment.
5. It was also submitted that murder of watchmen is not connected to the
industrial activity and not entitled to compensation.
6. It was argued by management claim application be rejected with cost.
7. Section 3(4) of employees compensation act was quoted by advocate.

 Arguments from Claimant side (Watchmen side)

1. The claimant side strongly argued that compensation to be granted as it is
a case of compensation and various grounds of eligibility were stated to
court.
2. Section 3 of employees compensation act 1923 was quoted as incident
happened because it ‘arised out of and in course of employment’.
3. Section 40 of factories act 1948 is applicable because the incident
indicated and comprised with the safety of employee and leading to
death.
4. The advocate argued that the murder took place on the grounds of nature
of job.
5. The advocate submitted the following rules:
1. Section 191 of IPC and The Indian evidence act 1872 is
applicable and giving false evidence would attract to penalty or
punishment or both.
2. Section 499 of IPC attracts to defamation of persons character,
profile intended to cause harm & misrepresents him. So
tarnishing someone’s identity draws simple Imprisonment up to
two years fine or both.
6. The advocate strongly objected the fact that workmen was under
influence of alcohol as management side witness claimed that at the night
of the incident the deceased was under the influence of alcohol when the
post mortem report states that he was not under influence of alcohol.
7. The advocate also submitted that the so called witness no 2(owner of
Shakuntala bar & restaurant) kept changing his statement which shouldn’t
be considered by court as evidence.

 Witnesses - (Statements)( workers side)

1. Vikas Gupta: Vikas Gupta is a worker employed with Swastik Chemicals
Ltd. He is working in company for 10 years and is friend of Chandan
kumar Subera. He was the eye-witness of the incident that took place
with Chandan kumar and gave his statement in court.
2. Dr. Sakshi: Medical inspector and doctor in Government hospital who
conducted the post-mortem of Chandan kumar. She told the court that
Chandan was stabbed and was not under the influence of alcohol.

 Case laws cited by claimant side:

1. Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Nanguli Singh, 1995 LLJ 298 (Ori HC).
2. Nisbet v. Rayne and Burn [1910 (2) KB.D. 689],
3. Doctrine of notional extension as per workmen’s compensation act is
applicable.
4. Bhagubai vs. general manager central railway ILR 1954 (Bombay HC
Division Bench)

 Last prayer by respondent :

The claim application to be dismissed.

 Last Prayer by Claimant :

The claim application be granted.

 Reasons of the Case:

- I have also noted down that the judgement part given by the
commissioner which stated that:
Taking into consideration the submission of both the parties namely the
claimant worker and respondent management, relevant documents
submitted, examination of witnesses, relevant authorities case laws
submitted by both the parties. It shows that the concerned deceased
watchmen and his duties are different from the other workmen. The
watchmen comes in definition of a Workmen but in this given case the
 duties of the deceased watchmen still continues even after completion of
the time period. It means the Law treats that he is still on duty. His
appointment and provision of quarters within the premises of the
company is with an objective of protecting the property of the company.

Therefore, under the given circumstances, “Murder is an Accident”

arising out of and in the course of employment as per Section 3 of
Employees Compensation Act 1923.

The Murder or Accident of the watchmen arose within the application of

Doctrine of Notional Extension.

Accordingly Labour Commissioner under Employees compensation Act

passed the Following Order.

ORDER

1. Claim Applicant is granted.

2. Respondent Management is directed to pay compensation for death of

watchmen as per Section 4 of the Employees Compensation Act 1923.

3. The Respondent Management is also directed to pay amount within

one month from the Date of Order and report the commissioner
accordingly.

4. No Order as to Cost.

Date: 28/04/2021 Signature of Commissioner