Brief and relevant facts of the case

1. The appeal was filed by Saurashtra Salt Manufacturing Co. against an order of the Saurashtra
High Court to pay compensation to the workers who had drowned because of a board
accident while travelling from the salt plant of the appellant.
2. The plant was situated near a creek opposite to the town of Porbandar.
3. To reach the salt works, the workers could take two routes. Route 1 was the land route which
was 6-7 miles long. The second route was through the creek. The boat was boarded at point
A which was at the ghat and the workers deboarded at point B located on a sandy piece of
land. From point B, after crossing the sandy area, the workers could reach the salt works.
There was sandy also a public foot path in the sandy area which connected to the salt works
at point D. (Refer to Fig 1[1] attached below)
4. On evening, the boat got into an accident when it had almost reached point A. The boat was
carrying workmen who drowned due to bad weather and overloading and seven cases were
filed under Workmen Compensation Act.
 
Issue
1. Whether there was any arrangements between the appellant and the ferrywales for its
workmen’s to be ferried to and from the plant?
2. Whether appellant was liable to pay any compensation?
3. Whether the employee was still in the course of his employment when he was on his journey
between point A and point B?

Held

1. The Court that there was no agreement between the ferry walas. The boats are used by the
public and the workmen on a public commute is there as any other members of the public
and is outside the course of his employment.
2. To decide if the accident occurred during the “course of employment” – The Court stated that
any accident arising after workmen left point B or point A but not reached point B would not
be considered as one in the course of his/her employment.
3. The Court explained the theory of notional extension of employer's premises includes “an
area which the workman passes and repasses in going to and in leaving the actual place of
work. There may be some reasonable extension in both time and place 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.”
4. The Court while applying the theory only extended it upto point D and not beyond it. The
accident which took place when the boat was almost at point A, the Appellant wasn’t held
liable.

Analysis

1. Legal Analysis:

· According to section 3 of the Workmen’s Compensation Act, 1923 “if personal injury is
caused to an employee by accident arising out of and in the course of his employment: his
employer shall be liable to pay compensation.”
· The theory of notional extension allows the an imaginary extension of an employee’s
working time under reasonable circumstances. This means that the employer may be
made liable in certain circumstances for the injury caused to his workers even when he is
away from the workplace.
· In this case, travelling through the creek which was the usual route can be construed as
one in the nature of the job. The Court might have been wrong to only extend the theory
up until point D. The workers had still not reached point A and the only route from Point
D to the town was through Point B and Point A.
· A wrongful reading of the same deprives the workers and their families a benefit arising
out of the provision.

2. Contradiction in the reasoning:

The Court may have been inconsistent in applying the theory because the Court held that
a reasonable extension of time and place may be allowed but failed to do so because it’s
not only reason given by Court in extending the doctrine till Point D was because the that
the workers accessed a public mode of communication. The Court may have been too
rigid in its application which might not have been the intent of the legislator.

3. Social and political:

· The Court should have given the provision a broader reading than it did. The act is a
beneficiary act and was introduced as a social measure to bridge the power assymentary
and protect socially and economically weaker sections.
· The Court went against the undertaking signed by the employer to not ask for a refund
which might create a sense of insecurity in the minds of the workers. The employers can
use this case as precedent to get out of any such undertaking signed by them.
 · The Court was rather brutual in asking the respondents to bear the cost given the
socio-economic circumstances of the respondents and what was signed in the
undertaking.

Conclusion

There is no clear standards laid down in common law which creates more confusion. The Courts
have the discretion to interpret can result in employers exploiting their workers.

Figure 1

[1]
this figure might not be accurate & is for explanatory purposes only