EMPLOYERS LIABILITY FOR COMPENSATION UNDER THE

EMPLOYEE’S COMPENSATION ACT, 1923: A STUDY

6.5 Labour and Industrial Law

Submitted by –

KRISHNA KANT JAIN

UID No.: SM0115022

3rd Year, 6th Semester

National Law University, Assam

 CONTENT

Table of Cases ………………………………………………………..................................... ii

Table of Statutes ……….…..…...………………………………...………………...…….... iii

Table of Abbreviations …………………..………...………….............................................. iv

Introduction ……………………………………………………………………….................. 1

Aim ……………………………………………………………………………....................... 2

Objectives ……………………………………………………………………......................... 2

Scope and Limitations …………………………………………………………...................... 3

Review of Literature ……...………………………………...………...................…………… 3

Research Questions ………………………………............................................................….. 4

Research Methodology ………………...............................................................................….. 4

Employer’s Liability for compensation ............................................................................... 4

“Arising out of and in course of employment” – Controversy ....................................... 8

Judicial Interpretation .................................................................................................. 9

Doctrine of Notional Extension .......................................................................... 10

Case Analyses .............................................................................................................. 11

Conclusion …...………………………………………………………………….................. 15

Bibliography ………...……………………………………………………….….................. v

i
TABLE OF CASES

S. No Cases
1. A.H. Bull and Co. v. West African Shipping Co.
2. Assistant Executive Engineer v. Sunanda.
3. Bhurangya Coal Co. v. Sahebjan.
4. Bikancr v. Heeraram.
5. Branch Manager, New India Assurance Co. Ltd. v. Siddappa, Major.
6. Central Glass Industries v. Abdul Hussain.
7. Chairman Madras Port Trust, Madras v. Kamala.
8. Damyantiben Kantilal Pandya v. Employees' State Insurance
Corporation.
9. Divisional Controller, NEKRTC, Gulbarga v. Sangamma.
10. Divisional Personal Officer, Western Railway v. Asluya Segam.
11. Hastimal v. A. Arjunan.
12. Imperial Tobacco Co. (India) Ltd v. Salona Bibi.
13. Indian News Chronicle v. Mrs Lazarus.
14. Kunjoonjamma Daniel v. KS.E.B.
15. M. Mackenzie v. I.M. Issak.
16. M/s Chowgule and Co. (Pvt) Ltd. v. Smt. Felicidade.
17. Mammed v. Gopalan.
18. Mangala Ben v. Dalip Motwani
19. Matheto Joseph v. johay Sunny.
20. Oriental Insurance Co. Lid. v. Nanguli Singh.
21. Public Works Department v. Kaunsa Gokul
22. R.B. Mundra & Co. v. Mr. Bhanwari.
23. Ravuri Kotayya v. Dasari Nagavardhanamma.
24. Regional Director, ESI Corporation Bombay v. Marry Cutinho.
25. Rohini Shamrao Burud v. Hindustan Petroleum Corporation.
26. Shah v. Rajankutty.
27. Shakuntala Chandrakant Shresthi v. Prabhakar Maruti Garveli &
Anr.
28. Shri Sankar Kal v. Shri Sunil Kumar Saha.
29. Smt. Koduri v. Polongi Atchamma
30. State Bank of India v. Vijay Laxmi.
31. State of Kerala v. Khadeeja Beevi.
32. State of Rajasthan v. Ram Prasad and Anr.
33. Sunita Devi v. Autar Singh and Anr.
34. T.N.C.S. Corporation Ltd. v. s. Poomalai.
35. Trustees Port of Bombay v. Yamunabai.
36. Zoo Authority of Karnataka v. Ranga.

TABLE OF STATUTES

ii
1923 – The Workmen’s Compensation Act

TABLE OF ABBREVIATIONS

ed. Edition

AIR All India Reporter

Co. Company

Ltd. Limited

p. Page Number

Pvt. Private

iii
 SC Supreme Court

Sec Section

v. Verses

Anr. Another

Pat. Patna

FLR Federal Law Reports

LLJ Labour Law Journal

UOI Union of India

LLR Labour Law Reporter

Ker. Kerala

Kant. Karnataka

AC Appeals Cases

Punj. Punjab

Cal. Calcutta

Raj. Rajasthan

Guj. Gujarat

SC Supreme Court

Mad. Madras

Bom. Bombay

M.P. Madhya Pradesh

A.P. Andhra Pradesh

iv
v
ABSTRACT

The problem of labour-management issue is very big in any industrial society, this is the reason that some sort
of social insurance becomes necessary to provide adequate protection from losses caused to the labours due to
accidents. The Workmen Compensation Act, 1923 was created to impose an obligation upon employers to pay
compensation to workers for accidents arising out of and in the course of employment. Prior to the passing of
this Act, the employer was liable to pay compensation only if he was guilty of negligence. According to this Act,
the employer is liable to pay compensation irrespective of negligence but only for the accident arising out of the
course of employment. It shows liability of the employer to pay compensation. Researcher in this research
paper will be looking the position of the employer in accordance with the act in regard to his liability to pay
compensation. It will also be looked upon as to what extent is the employer liable to the compensation. In this
research project, the researcher will try to open the debate as to whether it is the liability of the employer to pay
compensation to the workmen for any physical injury caused due to accident or not. In the light of provisions of
the Act, judicial interpretation and decided case laws, the researcher will analyse and decide the liability of the
employer.

INTRODUCTION

In any industrial society the problem of labour management relations becomes so important
that some sort of social insurance becomes necessary to provide adequate protection from
losses caused to the labours due to accidents. 1 The reason for which such a legislation was
needed to enacted was the growing complexity of industries with the increasing use of
machineries and consequent danger to the workmen along with the comparative poverty of
the workmen themselves from which they should be protected. It has been rightly said, “It is
the function of a welfare state to give to every citizen the opportunity of earning his living
and freedom from fear – far especially of economic ruin which can involve physical and even
moral ruin”.2 With a view to improve the condition of the employees and to provide
economic security in such conditions some social insurance many legislation have been
enacted.

The Workmen Compensation Act, 1923 is the first beneficial legislation for labour in India.
While the trade unionism and collective bargaining were in the preliminary stage, the then
British Government enacted this statute for the welfare of labour and their bereaved families.

1
S.N. Misra, LABOUR & INDUSTRIAL LAWS, 27th ed.,2014, Central Law Publications, Allahabad, p. 402.
2
K.D. Srivastava, COMMENTARIES ON THE WORKMEN’S COMPENSATION ACT, 1923, p. 1 and 2.

1
The main objective of the Act is to impose an obligation upon employers to pay
compensation to workers for accidents arising out of and in the course of employment. It is
essentially a social assistance measure, as it places the entire responsibility on the employer
for the payment of compensation for death, permanent or partial and permanent disablement.
Section 3 of the Act is the heart of the Act.

The Act creates a new type of liability. It is not a strict liability arising out of tort, but is a sort
of liability arising out of the relationship of the employer and the employee. The intention of
the legislature behind enacting this Act is to make the employer an insurer of the workmen
responsible against the losses caused by the injuries or death, which ought to have happened,
while the workmen was engaged in his work. 3 While interpreting the law liberally, the
Tribunal or Court is also bound to see that the purpose of this law is not misplaced and that in
genuine cases a workmen or his representative are entitled to get adequate compensation as
prescribed by law.4 In addition to that, the employers are not harassed with wrong and malice
cases. This liability on the part of employer should be in consonance with the Doctrine of
Added Peril5. The Doctrine of Added Peril come only play only when the employee is at the
time of meeting the accident performing his duty.6

In this research project, the researcher will try to open the debate as to whether it is the
liability of the employer to pay compensation to the workmen for any physical injury caused
due to accident or not. In the light of provisions of the Act, judicial interpretation and decided
case laws, the researcher will analyse and decide the liability of the employer.

Aim
The aim of this research project is to understand the position of employer under Workmen’s
Compensation Act, 1923, in regard to its liability to pay compensation.

Objectives
The objectives of this research project is –

3
Sunita Devi v. Autar Singh and Anr, 2004(101) FLR 214.
4
Shri Sankar Kal v. Shri Sunil Kumar Saha, (2012) IV LLJ 629 Gau.
5
The Doctrine of Added Peril means that if an employee while doing his employer’s work, trade or business
engages himself in some other work which he is not ordinarily required to do under the contract of his
employment and which act involves extra danger, he cannot hold his master liable for risk arising thereform.
6
Bhurangya Coal Co. v. Sahebjan, AIR 1956 Pat. 299.

2
 1. To understand why employers are made liable to pay compensation to employee for
any accident.
2. To have a clear understanding as to when an employer is liable to pay compensation
under Workmen’s Compensation Act, 1923.
3. To know as to what extend he is liable to pay compensation for an injury.

Scope and Limitations

The Scope of the research project is limited to Section 3 of the Workmen Compensation Act,
1923. The researcher will only focus on as to when an employer is liable to pay compensation
for injury due to accident. The researcher will not go into the details as to what type of injury
it is and the amount of compensation.

Review of Literature

1. S.N. Misra, LABOUR & INDUSTRIAL LAWS, 27th ed., 2014, Central Law
Publications, Allahabad.

Industry plays a vital role in building the economic structure of a society. Therefore, the
importance of labour and industrial laws in shaping the economy of a country cannot be
ignored. The book presents a brief commentary of Twenty one different labour enactments
dealing with Labour Management relations, Social Security legislations and Minimum
Standard legislations. Part 4 of the book deals with Workmen’s Compensation Act, 1923.
Chapter 1 give an account as to why the Act was required to be enacted and how it evolved
with the time. The subsequent chapter deals with the provisions of the Act in great detail and
explained them in the light of judicial decisions. It incorporates relevant material, important
amendments and recent judicial decisions related to Workmen’s Compensation Act, 1923.

2. V.G. Goswami, “LABOUR AND INDUSTRIAL LAW”, 9 th ed., 2011, Central Law
Agency, Allahabad.

The book comprehensively covers important labour enactments and treatment of the subject
in an easy-to-understand and lucid language. The book contains relevant material and recent
case laws related employer’s liability for compensation under Workmen’s Compensation Act,
1923. The book was helpful as it dealt with the said Act in detail. It contained not only

3
definition and provisions of the Act but also explained them in detail with the help of varies
case laws.

Research Questions
1. Why employers are made liable to pay compensation to employee for any accident?
2. When an employer is liable to pay compensation under Workmen’s Compensation
Act, 1923?
3. What extend an employer will be liable to pay compensation for an injury?

Research Methodology

The research methodology adopted for the study of Workmen’s Compensation Act, 1923 is
doctrinal in nature. The sources for the same shall essentially be secondary. For the present
study the researcher shall rely upon library resources, journals and articles from magazines
and news papers, web journals and legal databases. Analytical method is employed with
regard to the analysis of the liability of the employer to pay compensation to workers for
accidents arising out of and in the course of employment.

EMPLOYER’S LIABILITY FOR COMPENSATION

The liability of an employer to pay compensation 7 is limited and is subject to the provisions
of the Act. Under Sec 3(1) the liability of the employer to pay compensation is dependent
upon the following for conditions –

1. Personal Injury must have been caused by an accident;

2. Such injury must have been caused by an accident;
3. The accident must have arisen out of and in his course of employment; and
4. The injury must have resulted either in death of the employee or in his total or partial
disablement for a period exceeding three days.

The employer shall not be liable to pay compensation in the following cases –

a. If the injury did not result in total or partial disablement of the employee for period
exceeding three days;

7
Section 3, The Workmen’s Compensation Act, 1923.

4
 b. In respect of any injury not resulting in death or permanent total disablement the
employer can plead –
i. That the employee was at the time of accident under the influence of drinks
and drugs;
ii. That the employee wilfully disobeyed an order expressly given or a rule
expressly framed for the purpose of securing safety of employees; and
iii. That the employee having known that certain safety – guards or safety device
are specially provided for the purpose of securing the safety of employee,
wilfully disregarded or removed the same.

The employer can succeed in his plea only if he can establish that the injury was attributed to
any one of the above factors.

Sec 3 clause 2 deals with the payment of compensation in case of an injury resulting from
occupational diseases. The list of the occupational diseases is contained in Schedule III of the
Act.8

Before opening the debate whether employer has a liability to pay compensation or not, it
very important to have a clear understanding as to who can be an employer and employee and
what is the status of workmen.

8
Schedule III, The Workmen’s Compensation Act, 1923.
List of Occupational Diseases
1. Infectious and parasitic diseases contracted in an occupation where there is a particular risk of contamination
(a) All work involving exposure to health or laboratory work;
(b) All work involving exposure to veterinary work
(c) Work relating to handling animals, animal carcasses or merchandise which may have been
contaminated by animals or animal carcasses;
(d) Other work carrying a particular risk of contamination
2. Disease caused by work in compressed air All work involving exposure to the risk concerned
3.Diseases caused by lead or its toxic compounds All work involving exposure to the risk concerned
4. Poisoning by nitrous fumes All work involving exposure to the risk concerned
5. Poisoning by organo phosphorus compounds All work involving exposure to the risk concerned
PART B
1. Diseases caused by phosphorus or its toxic compounds All work involving exposure to the risk concerned
2. Diseases caused by mercury or its toxic compounds All work involving exposure to the risk concerned
3. Diseases caused by benzene or its toxic homologues All work involving exposure to the risk concerned
4. Diseases caused by nitro and amino toxic derivatives of benzene or its homologous. All work involving
exposure to the risk concerned.

5
Sec 2(1)(dd) of the Act defines employee.9 The Amendment Act, 2009 has substituted the
word “employee” for the word “workman” as contained in the principle Act, it interested the
definition of the word “employee” adding clause (dd) and omitted the definition of
“workman” contained in clause (n). However, the definition of employee is almost same. For
not treating a person as employee, two conditions are required to be proved namely that his
employment is of casual nature and he is not employed for the purpose of employee‘s trade or
business and the onus is on the employer to prove these conditions.10

An Independent Contractor is not an employee under the Act. But where a person entered
into a construction contract and agreed to work himself and also to employ his own labour,
while construction material was to be supplied by the owner, and the contractor died while
working himself, it was held that the dependents of the deceased were entitled to
compensation. A salesman in an arrack shop is a “workman” in view of the Act. 11 It does not
matter that a person is employed by day, week, month or year.12

There must be a contract of employment between the employee and his employer, it does not
matter if the Contract of employment was made before or after the passing of this Act or such
contract is expressed as implied, oral or in writing. If an employee is casually employed for
the purposes of the trade or business of the employer, he is an employee within the definition
and Compensation for accident will be payable by an employer even when the employment
was of casual nature.13 A casual employee will be entitled to compensation if he meets with

9
 "employee" means a person, who is--
(i) a railway servant as defined in clause (34) of section 2 of the Railways Act, 1989 (24 of 1989), not
permanently employed in any administrative district or sub-divisional office of a railway and not
employed in any such capacity as is specified in Schedule II; or
(ii) (a) a master, seaman or other members of the crew of a ship,
(b) a captain or other member of the crew of an aircraft,
(c) a person recruited as driver, helper, mechanic, cleaner or in any other capacity in connection with a
motor vehicle,
(d) a person recruited for work abroad by a company, and who is employed outside India in any such
capacity as is specified in Schedule II and the ship, aircraft or motor vehicle, or company, as the
case may be, is registered in India; or
(iii) employed in any such capacity as is specified in Schedule II, whether the contract of employment was
made before or after the passing of this Act and whether such contract is expressed or implied, oral or
in writing; but does not include any person working in the capacity of a member of the Armed Forces
of the Union; and any reference to any employee who has been injured shall, where the employee is
dead, include a reference to his dependants or any of them;]
10
Mangala Ben v. Dalip Motwani, 1998 LLR 656.
11
Matheto Joseph v. johay Sunny, 1995 LLR 390 (Ker).
12
Zoo Authority of Karnataka v. Ranga, (1989) I LLJ 237 (Karnataka); Hastimal v. A. Arjunan, (1993) II LLJ
55 (Madras); State of Kerala v. Khadeeja Beevi, (1989) II LLJ (Kerala).
13
Kunjoonjamma Daniel v. KS.E.B., 2001 LLR 691 (Ker HC). 

6
an accident during the course of his employment. 14 An employee will be liable for payment of
compensation even when a' casual employee employed abroad meets with an accident.15 

Sec 2(e) of the Act provides that the term Employer "includes" the following:
i. any body of persons, whether incorporated or not,
ii. any managing agent16 of an employer,
iii. the legal representatives of a deceased employer17, and
iv. any person to whom the services of a workman are temporarily lent or let out, while the
workman is working for him.18
Thus the word “employer” includes not only natural persons, and body of persons, but
artificial and legal persons.

After discussing the status of employee and employer, and contract of employment within
them under the Act, now let’s open the debate whether employer has liability to pay
compensation. Under the Sec 3 of the Workmen’s Compensation Act, 1923, employer has the
liability to pay compensation for injuries arising out of and in the course of employment.

In order to succeed in an application for getting compensation under section 3 of the Act the
following points are required to be established:

1. that the accident must arise out of and in the course of the workman‘s employment;
2. there must be causal connection between the injury and the accident and the work
done in the course of the employment;
3. the workman has to say that while doing a part of his duty or incidental thereto it has
resulted into an accident.

It is necessary that the workman must be actually working at the time of the injury or the
accident. Therefore, the three factors, that there must be personal injury, which must be
caused in an accident, it must be caused in the course of and out of the employment must be
established.19 Here personal injury does not confined to only physical 20 or bodily injury but

14
Mammed v. Gopalan, 1996 LLR 426 (Ker HC); Shah v. Rajankutty, 2005 LLR 1122 (Ker HC). 
15
Assistant Executive Engineer v. Sunanda, 1995 LLR 116 (Kat HC). 
16
Section 2(1)(f), The Workmen’s Compensation Act, 1923.
17
After the death of employer, the liability of his representative is limited to the extent of the estate of the
deceased at his hand. He is not absolutely liable.
18
A.H. Bull and Co. v. West African Shipping Co., (1927) A.C. 686.
19
Branch Manager, New India Assurance Co. Ltd. v. Siddappa, Major, 2004 LLR 731 (Kant HC).
20
Indian News Chronicle v. Mrs Lazarus, AIR 1961 Punj. 102.

7
includes even a nervous shock, a mental injury or strain which cause a chill. 21 The expression
“accident” has not been defined in the Act. It means any unexpected mishap, untoward event,
or consequence brought about by some unanticipated or undersigned act which could not be
provided against.22

The expression “arising out of employment” means that there must be casual relationship
between the accident and the employment. Therefore, where a deceased employee while
travelling by public transport to his place of work met with a fatal accident and nothing has
been brought on record that the employee was not obliged to travel in any particular manner
under the terms of the employment nor he was travelling in the official transport. It was held
that there was no casual connection between accident and employment could be established.
Hence, the claimant is not entitled to any compensation. 23 If the accident has occurred on
account of the risk which is an incident of employment, it has to be held that the accident has
arisen out of the employment.24

“ARISING OUT OF AND IN COURSE OF EMPLOYMENT” – CONTROVERSY

Prior to the passing of this Act, the employer was liable to pay compensation only if he was
guilty of negligence. Even in case of proved negligence, the employer could get rid of his
liability by using defences like Doctrine of Assumed Risks25, Doctrine of Common
Employment26 and Doctrine of Contributory Negligence27. The three aforesaid defences and
the rule no negligence no liability made It almost impossible for an employee to obtain relief
in cases of accident. The Workmen's Compensation Act of 1923 radically changed the law.
According to this Act, the employer is liable to pay compensation irrespective of negligence
but only for the accident arising out of the course of employment. It shows liability of the
employer to pay compensation.

21
S.N. Misra, LABOUR & INDUSTRIAL LAWS, 27th ed.,2014, Central Law Publications, Allahabad, p. 434.
22
Ibid.
23
State Bank of India v. Vijay Laxmi, 1998 LLR 319.
24
Oriental Insurance Co. Lid. v. Nanguli Singh, 1995 LLJ HC ORS (298).
25
If the employee knew the nature of the risks he was undertaking when working in a factory, the employer had
no liability for injuries. The court assumed in such case that the workman had voluntarily accepted the risks
incidental to his work. The doctrine followed from the rule Volenti Non Fit Injuria, which means that one,
who has volunteered to take a risk of injury, is not entitled to damages if injury actually occurs.
26
Under this rule, when several Persons work together for a common purpose and one of them is injured by
some act or omission of another, the employer is not liable to pay compensation for the injury.
27
Under this rule' a person is not entitled to damages for injury if he was himself guilty of negligence and such
negligence contributed to the injury.

8
Judicial interpretation
Section 3 reflects the object of the Act and more particularly the phrase “arising out of and in
the course of employment” reflects the intention of the framers. It is the foundation principle
of the Act. The accident which resulted in injury or death must have connection with the
employment and must arise out of it. Sec 3 imposes liability upon employer to pay
compensation to the workers only if the accident occurs “arising out of and in the course of
employment”. He shall not be liable otherwise. Therefore it saves employees and employers
to similar extent.

The expression “arising out of employment” means that there must be casual relationship
between the accident and the employment. Arising out of the employment does not mean that
the personal injury must have resulted from the mere nature of employment and is also not
limited to cases where the personal injury is preferable to the duties which the workman has
to discharge.28 The phrase “out of employment” is not limited to mere nature of the
employment, but it applies to its nature, its conditions and obligations and its incidents. An
accident which occurs on account of a risk, which is an incident of employment, then the
claim for compensation, can succeed provided the workman has not exposed himself to an
added peril by his own imprudent act.29 The onus is on the claimant to prove that accident
arose out of and in the course of employment. 30  In the absence of any evidence that the
deceased died in an employment accident, compensation will not be payable to the family of
deceased.31

In Ravuri Kotayya v. Dasari Nagavardhanamma,32 Andhra Pradesh High Court has laid
down the test by which is accident has arisen out of and in the course of employment can be
established –
1. The workman was employed on or performing the duties at the time of accident.
2. That the accident occurred at or about the place where he was performing these duties
or where the performance of the duties required him to be present.
3. That the immediate act which led to or resulted in the accident has some form of
casual relation with the performance of these duties, and such casual connection could
be held to exist if the immediate act which led to the accident is not so remote from

28
Central Glass Industries v. Abdul Hussain AIR 1948 Cal 12.
29
Bikancr v. Heeraram, 1982 (44) RR 179 Raj.
30
M/s Chowgule and Co. (Pvt) Ltd. v. Smt. Felicidade, AIR 1970 Goa 127.
31
Rohini Shamrao Burud v. Hindusfan Petroleum Corporation, 2006 LLR 288.
32
AIR 1962 AP 42

9
 the sphere of his duties or the performance thereof, as to be regarded as something
foreign to them.
4. There are certain exception to the above rule like the accident involve some risk
common to general public and if he by his own act expose himself to some added
peril and has accident.

Where death was accelerated on account of stress and strain of the working condition, it is
not necessary that there should be a direct connection between the cause of death and the
nature of duties. Even if a casual connection between the two can be shown then the
dependants of the deceased would be entitled to claim compensation from the employer. 33
The strain of the work resulting into heart attack will fasten the liability on employer for
paying compensation.34 There will be no nexus between the cause of death and employment
injury when an employee dies after treatment of the injury in the hospital.35

Doctrine of Notional Extension

There is no problem in detecting that the accident occurred in the course of employment
when a workman is injured in the working place and in the working hour and doing his duty.
The problem arises when these elements do not coincide together. Ordinarily a person’s
employment does not begin until he has reached the place where he has to work and does not
continue after he has left the place of his employment. The period of going to or returning
from employment are generally excluded and are not within course of employment.
Travelling to and from is prima facie not in the course of employment. 36 But if a workman
injured just near the work premises or just before joining the work or in the way to work
problem arises. To address this kind of problem and giving some kind of relief to the
workmen the theory of notional extension evolved.

Due to theory of notional extension now the reasonable extension in both time and place is
taken into account and a workman may be regarded as in the course of his employment even
though he had not reached or had left his employer's premises. The facts and circumstances
of each case will have to be examined very carefully in order to determine whether the

33
Divisional Personal Officer, Western Railway v. Asluya Segam, 1994 LLR 11 (Raj).
34
Divisional Controller, NEKRTC, Gulbarga v. Sangamma, 2005 LLR 352. 
35
Damyantiben Kantilal Pandya v. Employees' State Insurance Corporation, 1996 LLR 788 (Guj HC). 
36
S.N. Misra, LABOUR & INDUSTRIAL LAWS, 27th ed.,2014, Central Law Publications, Allahabad, p. 447.

10
accident arose out of and in the course of the employment of a workman, keeping in view at
all times this theory of notional extension.

If the accident has occurred on account of the risk which is an incident of employment, it has
to be held that the accident has arisen out of the employment. 37 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. 38 In Chairman Madras
Port Trust, Madras v. Kamala,39 it was held that fetching food is part of employee’s duty.
Therefore, accident to an employee while fetching food is in the course of employment. Even
when an employee goes for lunch and receives injury, the same will be treated as
'employment injury' entitling him to compensation.40

Case Analyses

State of Rajasthan v. Ram Prasad and Anr41

Facts – The workman died due to natural lightening while working at the site.

Contention – The claimant contended that the accident happened during the course of
employment hence the employer is liable to pay compensation.

Judgment – The Hon’ble Supreme Court observed that in this case the workmen died due to
lightening. In normal course if the workman is injured as a result natural force of lightening,
it in has no connection with employment of deceased. But is the employer can still be held
liable if the claimant shows that the employment exposed the deceased to such injury. In the
present case the deceased was working on the site and would not have been exposed to such
hazard of lightening had she not been working. Therefore the appellant was held liable to pay
compensation.

R.B. Mundra & Co. v. Mr. Bhanwari42

37
Oriental Insurance Co. Lid. v. Nanguli Singh, 1995 LLJ HC ORS (298).
38
T.N.C.S. Corporation Ltd. v. s. Poomalai, 1995 LLR 63 (Mad): 1995 I LLJ HC MDS (378).
39
A.I.R. 1970 Mad.386
40
Regional Director, ESI Corporation Bombay v. Marry Cutinho, 1994 LLR 947
41
(2001) I L.L.J. 177 (SC)
42
AIR 1970 Raj. 111.

11
Facts – The deceased was employed as a driver on the appellant’s truck used for the purpose
of carrying petrol in a tank. On the previous day he had reported to his employer that the tank
was leaking and so water was put in it for detecting the place from where it leaked. The next
morning the deceased was asked by the appellant to enter the tank to see from where it
leaked. Accordingly he enters the tank which had no petrol in it and for the purpose of
detecting the leakage he lighted a match stick. The tank caught fire and the deceased received
burn injuries and later on succumbed to death.

Contention – The employer contended that the workman has himself added to his peril by
negligently and carelessly lightening a match-stick inside the petrol tank.

Judgment – It was observed that if an act leading to the accident was one within the sphere of
employment or incidental to it or in the interest of the employer, than the accident would be
said to arise out of and in course of employment and the plea of added peril would fail.

In this case the deceased did something in furtherance of the employer’s work when the
accident occurred although he was careless or negligent in as much as he lighted the
matchstick instead of using a torch to detect the leakage. But because the tank was empty and
partly filled with water on the previous night, he could not have little reason to foresee the
risk involved. Therefore, it was held that the accident arose out of employment and the act of
lightening the matchstick even if rash or negligent would not debar his widow from claiming
compensation.

M. Mackenzie v. I.M. Issak43

Facts – A seaman went missing from the ship named “Dwarka”. He was last seen on
December 16, 1961 around 3 a.m., on the Tween Deck and was found missing at 6.15 a.m. in
the morning. A search was undertaken but the dead body was not found. The Additional
Commissioner made an inspection of the ship and found no medical evidence which could
lead to the inference that the death was caused by an accident which arose out of seaman’s
employment.

Contention – A proper inspection was done by the Commissioner and there was no accident
arising out of his course of employment.

43
AIR 1970 SC 1906.

12
Judgement – It was held that the commissioner did not commit any error of law in reaching to
the above finding. No compensation was payable in this case because on the facts there was
no material for holding that death took place on account of accident which arose out of his
employment. It was further held that in the case of death caused by the accident, the burden
of proof rests upon the workman to prove that accident arose out of employment as well as in
the course of employment. But it is not necessary that the workman must prove it by direct
evidence. It may be inferred when the facts proved justify the inference.

Trustees Port of Bombay v. Yamunabai44

Facts – A bomb was placed in the premises of a workshop by some unknown person. The
bomb exploded and caused injury to a workman named Vinayak Yenku. He was
subsequently moved to the St. George's Hospital, where he died on the night of the same day.
The respondent, who is the widow of the deceased Vinayak, made the present application
claiming compensation in the sum of Rs. 3,500.

Contention – The appellant contended that Vinayak was not a workman within the meaning
of the Act and that the accident did not arise out of and in the course of his employment.

Judgement - The rule is that if a particular accident would not have happened to a workman
had he not been employed to work in the particular place and condition, it would be accident
arising out of the employment. It was held that the workman was not responsible for placing
of the bomb, and injury due to its explosion was caused at the time and place at which he was
employed, therefore the injury was the result of an accident arising out of his employment.

Similarly, in case of Public Works Department v. Kaunsa Gokul,45 where a gang Jamadar
while going to collect salary of the labourers from the office of the Public Works Department
was murdered in the way at a place on which he sat down to take his meals near a well. He
was found dead at a considerable distance from the place where other members of his gang
were actually working on the road, the Court held that the death of Gokul was an accident
arising out of his employment because the accident would not have happened had he not been
engaged in that employment. In this case the accident arose because of the nature of
employment that exposed him to some particular danger.

Smt. Koduri v. Polongi Atchamma46

44
AIR 1952 Bom 382.
45
(1967) I LLJ 344 (M.P.)
46
(1969) Lab. I.C. 1415 (A.P.)

13
Facts – The deceased was an employee in the lorry belonging to his employer carrying quarry
material from the quarry site to the work spot of the PWD. His duty was to load and unload
the materials. One day while the lorry was moving he attempted to hit a rabbit passing on the
road and in the attempt he fell down from the lorry and died. His wife claimed compensation
for the loss of life of her husband.

Judgement – The court held that no compensation was payable because hitting a rabbit which
ran across the truck was not a part of the workman’s service for which he was employed. The
mere fact that the workman was, during the particular period, travelling in the employer’s
truck with the quarry material from the quarry site to the work spot is not enough.” Thus, in a
way, the court applied the ‘added peril’ doctrine to deny the benefit to the workman.

Imperial Tobacco Co. (India) Ltd v. Salona Bibi47

Facts – Mohammad Syed who was a workman under company of Appellant, suffered from
high fever and was recommended two days leave by the doctor. When returned on the third
day the doctor found him suffering from malaria and pneumonia. He was again granted three
days leave. After the expiry of three days when he came in a rickshaw to report to the doctor,
his condition was so serious that he had to be taken upstairs to the dispensary in a stretcher.
The doctor found him in almost a dying condition and therefore hastened to administer
injection but he died after a few minutes.

Contention – The appellants, who are the employers contented that the journey had been
undertaken voluntarily and, in any event, it had nothing to do with the death which was
caused solely by disease and, therefore, there was no death by an accident arising out of and
in the course of the workman's employment and indeed no accident at all.

Judgement – After taking the evidence it was proved that the case as presented by the
company was false. Thus, in the light of facts and evidence it was held that “as the stress and
strain of the journey was responsible for causing or precipitating the workman’s death, there
was an accident arising out of and in the course of employment.”

Shakuntala Chandrakant Shresthi v. Prabhakar Maruti Garveli & Anr48

Facts – Prakash Chandrakant Shreshti was working as a Cleaner in Vehicle No. MH 09A
9727. The said vehicle belonged to Respondent No. 1. He was travelling in the said vehicle in
47
AIR 1956 Cal. 458.
48
2007 I LLJ 474 (SC).

14
the night of 27.9.2002. He suddenly developed chest pain. He was admitted to Government
hospital, Mangaon where the doctor declared him dead due to cardiac arrest. The fact that at
the time of his death, the deceased was discharging his duties is not disputed. The autopsy
was conducted wherein the cause of death was opined as Cardiac arrest due to Rupture Aortic
Aneurysm. No injury on his body was found.

The Commissioner for Workmen’s Compensation granted compensation. On appeal, the

High Court held the conclusion that workman died as a result of an accident during course of
employment was not sustainable. Hence this appeal was filed before the Supreme Court.

Contention – The claimant contented that his son died while working due to strain of work.

Judgement – The Supreme Court dismissing the appeal and held that there must be a causal
connection between injury and accident occurring in the course of employment and the onus
was on applicant to show that strain resulted from work. It was further observed that unless
evidence was brought on record that death of workman by way of cardiac arrest had occurred
because of stress or strain (which was held not proved in this case) the Commissioner had no
jurisdiction to grant damages.

CONCLUSION

The Workmen Compensation Act, 1923 proves to be a beneficial legislation for labour. The
Act can be seen as a social assistance measure, as it places the entire responsibility on the
employer for the payment of compensation for death, permanent or partial and permanent
disablement. Sec 3 of the Act is the heart of the Act. Sec 3 imposes liability upon employer to
pay compensation to the workers only if the accident occurs “arising out of and in the course
of employment”. He shall not be liable otherwise. Therefore, it saves employees and
employers to similar extent.

Sec 3 clearly mentions in which cases employers are liable to pay compensation and in which
cases they are not. In addition to the provisions of the Act, Judicial interpretation also plays
important role in safeguarding interest of employee. Evolution of Doctrine of Notional
Extension, strengthen the position of employee in case of loss.

15
Indeed, the Act was enacted for the welfare of employees but on the other hand it also keeps
a check through its provisions and judicial interpretation that the employers are not harassed
with false and malice compensation claims.

Thus, the employer has liability to pay compensation to workmen for injuries occurred during
accident arising out of and in the course of employment only. Employers are not absolutely
liable. They are liable to extend i.e. only for accidents arising out of course of employment.

16
BIBLIOGRAPHY

List of Books

S.N. Misra, LABOUR & INDUSTRIAL LAWS, 27th ed., 2014, Central Law Publications,
Allahabad.

V.G. Goswami, “LABOUR AND INDUSTRIAL LAW”, 9th ed., 2011, Central Law Agency,
Allahabad.

Dr. H.K. Saharay, TEXTBOOK ON LABOR AND INDUSTRIAL LAW, 5 th ed., 2011,
Universal Law Publishing Company, New Delhi.

S.K.Puri, AN INTRODUCTION TO LABOUR AND INDUSTRIAL LAWS, 2005,

Allahabad Law Agency, Faridabad.

List of Websites

www.scconline.com

www.manupatra.com

www.lexisnexis.com

www.westlawindia.com

www.heinonline.org

www.shodhganga.inflibnet.ac.in