HIDAYATULLAH NATIONAL LAW UNIVERSITY

A project on
Employer’s liability in case of occupational disease

SUBMITTED TO
Dr. Balwinder Kaur

SUBMITTED BY
Saurabh Das Manikpuri
Sem- V, Sec- A
Roll no. 143

Date- 31/11/18

Subject- Labour Law-II

1
 Acknowledgements

At the outset, I would like to express my heartfelt gratitude and thank my teacher, Dr. Balwinder Kaur
for putting her trust in me and giving me a project topic such as this and for having the faith in me to
deliver. I thank you for an opportunity to help me grow. My gratitude also goes out to the staff and
administration of HNLU for the infrastructure in the form of our library, IT Lab and my friends that
was a source of great help for the completion of this project.

Saurabh Das Manikpuri

Labour Law- II

2
 Table of contents
I. INTRODUCTION………………………………………………………..…...05

II. BACKGROUND (EMPLOYEES’ COMPENSATION ACT, 1923)..............06

III. CONCEPT OF LIABILITY UNDER EMPLOYEES’ COMPENSATION ACT,

1923………………………………………………………………....………..07

1. NATURE OF LIABILITY

IV. EMPLOYER’S LIABILITY …………………………………………………08

1. EMPLOYER’S LIABILITY FOR COMPENSATION

2. IN CASE OF OCCUPATIONAL DISEASES

3. SCOPE OF SECTION 3 OF EMPLOYEES’ COMPENSATION ACT, 1923

V. CONCLUSION……………………………………………………………….19

VI. BIBLIOGRAPHY…………………………………………………………….20

3
 CHAPTER-1

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 labourers by accidents. With the view to improve the condition of the
employees some social insurance legislations have been enacted. This employee’s
compensation Act is one of the earliest measures adopted to benefit the labourers. It was
passed in 1923 and enforced on 1st July, 1924. Since then a number of amendments have
been made from time to time so as to suit the changing needs and conditions of the
employees. The object of the Act was to make provision for the payment of compensation by
certain class of employers to their employees for injury by accident. Originally the Act was
applicable to employees of certain specified industries, employed otherwise than in clerical
capacity; and receiving monthly wages no exceeding Rs. 300. The employees were entitled to
compensation from the employer in case of personal injury caused by accident arising out of
and in the course of employment with certain reservations to the duration of incapacity and
negligence of employee himself. The payment of compensation was mainly dependent upon
the incapacity or disablement of employees. The Employees’ Compensation Act creates a
new type of liability. It is not strictly a liability arising out of tort, but is a sort of liability
arising out of the relationship of the employer and the employee. An employer under this Act
is liable to pay compensation at a rate fixed in the Act itself to any employee incapacitated by
an accident arising out of and in the course of his employment. The main principle governing
the compensation is not dependent on the suffering caused to the employee or expenses
incurred by him in his treatment but on the difference between his wage earning capacity
before and after the accident. The liability for the payment of compensation is not dependent
upon the neglect or wrongful act on the part of employer.1

1
Misra, S. N. Labour and Industrial Law. 26th ed. Allahabad: Central Law Publications, 2011, p. 401.

4
 OBJECTIVE
 To study provision regarding the Employer’s liability in the case of occupational
diseases .
 To know the Scope regarding Section 3 of Employer Compensation Act, 1923.
 Feature of the Employer Compensation Act, 1923

RESEARCH METHODOLOGY
The method of research adopted for the project is analytical methodology. For the present
project relevant data and information has been received and collected from secondary sources
and there has been use of authentic books and websites which provided reliable information
and data.

5
 CHAPTER-2

BACKGROUND
The Employees’ Compensation Act is one of the earliest measures adopted to benefit the
labourers. It was passed in 1923 and enforced on 1st July, 1924. Since then a number of
amendments have been made from time to time as to suit the changing needs and conditions
of the employees. The object of this Act was to make provision for the payment of
compensation by certain class of employers to their employees for injury by accident. It was
as early as 1884, that the question of payment of compensation to employees involved in
serious or fatal accidents was raised when the factory and mining inspectors drew the
attention of the government to this human problem which warranted immediate legislative
protection of employees. But its importance was realized by the Government of India only at
the end of 1920, when public opinion was invited on connected issues. A committee
consisting of members of the legislative Assembly, employers, workers or representatives of
workers, medical and insurance experts was constituted. It was on the basis of
recommendation of the committee that Employees’ Compensation Act was enacted in 1923
which provided for setting up of tribunals on the American model of decide disputes,
appointment of special Commissioners with wide powers and a limited right of appeal to the
High Court. With the progress of time in the standards of living in the society the Act has on
many occasions been modified so as to benefit greater number of employees and to provide
for payment of greater amount of compensation to them. The Royal Commission on labour
paid a tribute to the smooth working of the Act and recommended the extension of the
benefits under the Act to a large class of employees. Prof. Adarkar advocated for compulsory
insurance of all employees. The result was that the Employees’ State Insurance Act, 1948
was passed. This Act was a substantial improvement over the Employees’ Compensation Act.
Any person who is covered by Employees’ state Insurance Act, 1948 and who is entitled to
receive disablement or dependant’s benefit under this Act is not entitled to compensation
from the employer under the Employees’ Compensation Act, 1923. So, this Employees’
Compensation Act was framed with a view to provide for compensation to employees
incapacitated by an injury from accident arising out and in course employment and also in
case of occupational disease. This Act extends to the whole of India except the Jammu and

6
Kashmir. Unlike the English Act, this Act is not applicable to all employees. It applicable to
employees of certain industries.

CHAPTER-3

FEATURES OF THE ACT

1. The employees’ Compensation Act is modeled on this British pattern. Under the Act
payment of compensation has been made obligatory on all employers whose
employees are entitled to claim benefit under the Act.
2. The employee or his dependants may claim compensation if the injury has been
caused by accident arising out of and in the course of employment and in case lf
injury not resulting in death if such accident cannot be attributed to the employees
having been at the time of accident under the influence of drink or drugs or if it is not
caused due to willful disobedience of rule or orders or disregard of safety devices.
3. In order to protected the interest of dependants in case of fatal accidents the following
provisions are made-
(i) All cases of fatal accident are to be brought to the notice of the commissioner;
(ii) If the employer admits his liability the amount of compensation payable is to
be deposited with the commissioner;
(iii) If the employer admits his liability and at the same time there are grounds for
believing compensation to be payable, the dependants get the information
necessary to enable them to judge if they should make a claim or not.
4. The Act is administered by the Commissioner for Employees’ Compensation
appointed by the State Government.

7
 CHAPTER-4

CONCEPT OF LIABILITY UNDER EMPLOYEES’

COMPENSATION ACT, 1923
The concept of liability in labour law implies sanctions against those,breaking the law. This
injurious conduct takes place in the framework of permanent legal relations. However,
liability is not the only means of education; there are also other legal and extra-legal social
means at our disposal. This circumstances makes its effect felt in labour law in more than one
respect. It menifests itself in connection with the injurious conduct committed by employee in
the following: on the one hand, the legal regulation establishes a differentiated system of
sanctions, making it possible to take into consideration the situation within the collective, and
it considerably restricts the extent of material liability. On the other hand, it leaves it to the
discretion of the one who is entitled to claim liability whether he/she wishes to use this means
of individual and collective prevention. Finally, it has repeatedly been expressed in judicial
practice that in applying sanction one of the essential point of view to be considered is the
internal situation and the level of order and discipline in the enterprise. In case of an injury
suffered by a worker, this manifests itself in that the employer, as a general rule, is held liable
irrespective of culpability and emphasizes that the enterprise should organize the work and
cooperation within its scope of activity in such a way as to prevent misconduct or accident.

NATURE OF LIABILITY

Liability in labour law arises only upon the infringement of a given right. However, it does
not arise automatically. The Employees’ Compensation Act creates a new type of liability. It
is not strictly a liability arising out of tort, but is a sort of liability arising out of the
relationship of the employer and the employee. An employer under this Act is liable to pay
compensation at a rate fixed in the Act itself to any employee incapacitated by an accident
arising out of and in the course of his employment. The main principle governing the
compensation is not dependent on the suffering caused to the employee or expenses incurred
by him in his treatment but on the difference between his wage earning capacity before and

8
after the accident. The liability for the payment of compensation is not dependent upon the
neglect or wrongful act on the part of employer.

CHAPTER-5

EMPLOYER’S LIABILITY
As per Employees’ Compensation Act, 1923 the term ‘employer’ means and includes
anybody of persons whether incorporated or not and any managing agent of an employer and
the legal representative of a deceased employer, and, when the services of an employee are
temporarily lent or let on hire to another person by the person with whom the employee has
entered into a contract of service or apprenticeship, means such other person while the
employee is working for him (Section-2e).

Generally employer’s liability has been arising in case of any injury or any damage occurred
due to employer meaning thereby, if any injury has been arising during the course of
employment the employers are liable to pay compensation.

EMPLOYER’S LIABILITY FOR COMPENSATION

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 in accordance with the
provisions of this Chapter:

Provided that the employer shall not be so liable—

(a) In respect of any injury which does not result in the total or partial disablement of the
employee for a period exceeding three days;

(b) In respect of any [injury, not resulting in death or permanent total disablement, caused
by an accident which is directly attributable to—

(i) The employee having been at the time thereof under the influence of drink or
drugs, or

(ii) The willful disobedience of the employee to an order expressly given, or to a rule
expressly framed, for the purpose of securing the safety of employees, or

(iii) the willful removal or disregard by the employee of any safety guard or other
device which he knew to have been provided for the purpose of securing the

9
 safety of employees,

(2) If an employee employed in any employment specified in Part A of Schedule III contracts
any disease specified therein as an occupational disease peculiar to that employment, or if an
employee, whilst in the service of an employer in whose service he has been employed for a
continuous period of not less than six months (which period shall not include a period of
service under any other employer in the same kind of employment) in any employment
specified in Part B of Schedule III, contracts any disease specified therein as an occupational
disease peculiar to that employment, or if an employee whilst in the service of one or more
employers in any employment specified in Part C of Schedule III, for such continuous period
as the Central Government may specify in respect of each such employment, contracts any
disease specified therein as an occupational disease peculiar to that employment, the contract-
ing of the disease shall be deemed to be an injury by accident within the meaning of this
section and, unless the contrary is proved, the accident shall be deemed to have arisen out of,
and in the course of, the employment:

Provided that if it is proved,—

(a) that an employee whilst in the service of one or more employers in any employment
specified in Part C of Schedule III has contracted a disease specified therein as an
occupational disease peculiar to that employment during a continuous period which is
less than the period specified under this sub-section for that employment, and

(b) that the disease has arisen out of and in the course of the employment;

the contracting of such disease shall be deemed to be an injury by accident within the
meaning of this section :

Provided further that if it is proved that an employee who having served under any
employer in any employment specified in Part B of Schedule III or who having served under
one or more employers in any employment specified in Part C of that Schedule, for a
continuous period specified under this sub-section for that employment and he has after the
cessation of such service contracted any disease specified in the said Part B or the said Part C,
as the case may be, as an occupational disease peculiar to the employment and that such
disease arose out of the employment, the contracting of the disease shall be deemed to be an
injury by accident within the meaning of this section.

(2A) If an employee employed in any employment specified in Part C of Schedule III

10
contracts any occupational disease peculiar to that employment, the contracting whereof is
deemed to be an injury by accident within the meaning of this section, and such employment
was under more than one employer, all such employers shall be liable for the payment of the
compensation in such proportion as the Commissioner may, in the circumstances, deem just.

(3) The Central Government or the State Government], after giving, by notification in the
Official Gazette, not less than three months’ notice of its intention so to do, may, by a like
notification, add any description of employment to the employments specified in Schedule
III, and shall specify in the case of employments so added the diseases which shall be deemed
for the purposes of this section to be occupational diseases peculiar to those employments
respectively, and thereupon the provisions of sub-section (2) shall apply, in the case of a
notification by the Central Government, within the territories to which this Act extends or, in
case of a notification by the State Government, within the State as if such diseases had been
declared by this Act to be occupational diseases peculiar to those employments.

(4) Save as provided by sub-sections (2), (2A) and (3), no compensation shall be payable to
an employee in respect of any disease unless the disease is directly attributable to a specific
injury by accident arising out of and in the course of his employment.

(5) Nothing herein contained shall be deemed to confer any right to compensation on an
employee in respect of any injury if he has instituted in a Civil Court a suit for damages in
respect of the injury against the employer or any other person; and no suit for damages shall
be maintainable by an employee in any Court of law in respect of any injury—

(a) If he has instituted a claim to compensation in respect of the injury before a

Commissioner; or

(b) If an agreement has been come to between the employee and his employer providing for
the payment of compensation in respect of the injury in accordance with the provisions
of this Act.

Employer’s liability for compensation (Accidents)

The employer of any establishment covered under this Act is required to compensate an
employee:

(a) Who has suffered an accident arising out of land in the course of his employment,
resulting into:
(i) Death

11
 (ii) Permanent total disablement,
(iii) Permanent partial disablement,
(iv) Temporary disablement whether total or partial, or
(b) Who has contracted an occupational disease?

In Saurashtra salt Manufacturing co. v. Bai valu Raja, 2 the Supreme court had an
opportunity to provide the meaning and scope of the pharase “arising out of and in the course
of” provided in Section (3) (1) of the Workmen’s compensation Act. The appellant, in the
instant case, is the saurashtra salt manufacturing co. It employs workmen both temporary and
permanent. The salt works of the appellant is situated near a creek which has to be crossed by
a boat. There are at least two ways to go to salt works from the said town, one an over land
route nearly 6 or 7 miles long and the other via the creek which has to be crossed by a boat.
At the porbandar end of the creek is the asmavati Ghat and the creek can be crossed from
there at point A to the other side point B, which is on a sandy piece of land. Those crossing
the creek from point a alight from the boat at point B. From point B, after travelling the sandy
area, one can reach the salt jetty of the salt works and the salt works itself. On the sandy area
near point B, there is also a public footpath which goes to the salt works at Point D, the
distance being 1 and ½. mile. A boat carrying certain workmen, who had been employed by
the appellant, capsized due to bad whether and over-loading while crossing the creek from
point B to point A. As the result of the accident, some of the workmen were drowned
resulting in 7 cases for compensation being filled under the Employees’ Compensation Act.
The commissioner for workmen’s compensation found that the accident arose out of and in
the course of the employment of the workmen. Accordingly, he awarded compensation. The
Appellant appealed to the High Court of saurashtra. The High Court, after an elaborate
discussion of the law, came to the same conclusion and dismissed the appeal with costs. In
the appeal before Supreme Court, it was urged on behalf of appellant that although the
compensation had been paid to the dependants of the drowned workmen and the appellant did
not seek a refund of the same and the appellant must pay the costs of the respondents even in
the event of success, it was essential for the appellant to have discussion whether in the
circumstances disclosed in this case, in law the appellant was liable to pay any compensation.

The Supreme Court has applied the theory of ‘notional extension’ and held:

“As a rule, the employment of a workman does not commence until he was reached the
place of employment and does not continue when he has left the place of employment, the

2
AIR 1958 SC 881.

12
journey to and from the place of employment being exclude. It is now well settled, however,
that this is subject to the theory of notional extension of the employer’s premises so as to
include an area which the workman passes and repasses in going to and in leaving the actual
place of work. There 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 accident arose out
of land in the course of employment of a workman, keeping in view at all times this theory of
notional extension.”

CHAPTER-6

IN CASE OF OCCUPATIONAL DISEASES

As per Section 3(2) certain occupations involve clear risks from specified diseases. If the
workers in these occupations contract particular diseases, it is practically certain that the
disease arose out of the employment. But most industrial diseases are contracted gradually,
and in the case of a workman who has pursued the same occupation under several employers,
it is not always possible to assign responsibility to any particular employer. This is especially
the case as regards lead poisoning and phosphorous poisoning, the two diseases at present
entered in Schedule III. On the other hand, anthrax is a disease which is not contracted
gradually. The clause accordingly provides that where a workman contracts one of the three
specified occupational diseases, it is for the employer to prove that the disease did not result
from the employment. Except in the case of anthrax. The grant of compensation is subject to
the condition that six months should have elapsed since the workman took service with the
employer concerned.

So, section 3(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. Schedule III is divided into three parts, A, B and C. The disease contracted must be an
occupational disease peculiar to the employment specified in schedule III. In respect of every
such disease mentioned as occupational disease in schedule III, a list of number of
employments is given. To support any claim for compensation in case of occupational disease

13
in part A no specified period of employment is necessary; for disease in part B the employee
must be in continuous employment of the same employer for a period of employment would
be such as is specified by the central Government for each such employment whether in
service of one or more employers. The contracting of any accident arising out of and in the
course of employment unless the contrary is proved.

Part A of schedule III- The employer shall be liable to pay compensation for an injury
resulting from an occupational disease mentioned in Part a of schedule III, if an employee
employed in any employment specified in part A of schedule III contracts any disease
specified therein as an occupational disease peculiar to that employment. The contracting of
the disease shall be deemed to be an injury by accident would be deemed to have arisen out
of and in the course of employment.

Contracting of an occupational disease after discontinuance of service.- If any such

disease as is mentioned in part A of Schedule III develops after an employee has left the
employment, no compensation shall be payable to him.

Part B of schedule III.- In case of contracting of any disease mentioned in part B of

schedule III the employer shall be liable if an employee while in the service of an employer
in whose service he has been employed for a continuous period of not less than six months in
any employment specified in part B of schedule III contracts any disease peculiar to that
employment. The contracting of the disease shall be deemed to be an injury by accident
within meaning of this section, and unless contrary is proved, the accident would be deemed
to have arisen out of and in the course of the employment.

Contracting of an occupational disease after discontinuous of service- The employer

shall be liable to pay compensation to an employee where an employee contracts any disease
as aforesaid after he has left his employment in the following conditions:

1. If an employee has served under any employer in any employment specified in Part B
of Schedule III for a continuous period of six months.
2. If an employee has after cessation of his service contracted any disease specified in
Part B of Schedule III as an occupational disease peculiar to that employment.
3. If it is proved that such disease arose out of employment.

The contracting of the disease shall then be deemed to be an injury by accident within the
meaning of this section.

14
Part C of Schedule III- Where an employee contracts any disease specified in Part C of
Schedule III the employer shall be liable:

1. If an employee was in the service of one or more employers in any employment

specified in Part C of Schedule III for such continuous period as the Central
Government may specify in respect of each such employment; and
2. If he contracts any disease specified therein as an occupational disease peculiar to that
employment.

If the above two condition fulfilled, the contracting of the disease shall be deemed to be
an injury by accident within the meaning of section 3 of the Act and unless contrary is proved
the accident shall be deemed to have arisen out of and in the course of the employment.

According to the first proviso to sub-section 2 of section 3 if it is proved:

a. That an employee while in service of one or more employers in any employment

specified in Part C of the Schedule III has contracted a disease specified therein as an
occupational disease peculiar to the employment during a continuous period which is
less than the period specified under sub-section 2 of section 3 for that employment,
and
b. That the disease has arisen out of and in the course of employment; the contracting of
such disease shall be deemed to be an injury by accident within the meaning of
section 3 of the Act.

Contracting of such occupational disease after discontinuous of service.- where an

employee contracts an occupational disease after discontinuous of his service the
employer shall be liable to pay compensation:

1. If it is proved that the employee has served under one or more employers in any
employment specified in Part C of Schedule III for such continuous period as the
central Government may specify in respect of each employment;
2. If he has after cessation of his service contracted any disease specified in Part C of
Schedule III as an occupational disease to that employment; and
3. If it is proved that such disease arose out of the employment.

The contracting of the disease shall be deemed to be an injury by accident within the meaning
of this section.

15
 CHAPTER-7

SCOPE OF SECTION 3 OF EMPLOYEES’ COMPENSATION ACT, 1923

The Compensation Acts, by virtue of their own terms, are extended to cases of "personal
injury by accident arising out of or in the course of the employment." This is also the
phraseology of the English Act and for the most part, the same or similar words are used in
the various enactments of the American and the continental States of Europe.

The Workmen's Compensation Act is a beneficial statute which was enacted to provide
payment by certain class of employers to their workmen of compensation for injury by way
of accident. Since it is a beneficial legislation, the act is to be liberally construed so much so
that it provides security to workmen and their family resulting in loss of earning capacity.
Section 3 of the said Act fixes him liability on the employer for compensation. 11

The use of those words have played a very important part in the development of case law
under the statute: and as to the fundamental concept embodied in the language of this section,
opinions of Judges have not always been uniform. In this provision of the Act is to be found a
description of the conditions which, in respect of any particular calamity, place responsibility
on the employer and also a description of the conditions which fix responsibility therefor on
the injured employee. The question must then be determined as to what constitutes "injury
arising out of or in the course of the employment" between the employee on the one side and
the employer or the industry on the other: for under no statute as yet has the employee an
absolute and incontestable right to compensation, regardless of his position, conduct and
intention at the time of the calamity.

In order to attract section 3(1) of the Act, following three conditions must be fulfilled:

(i) Personal injury;

(ii) Accident; and

(iii) Arising out of and in the course of employment.

The practical effect of the passing of the Workmen's Compensation Act, is that it discarded
the old theory of the employer's fault as the basis of liability and conferred absolute right of

16
compensation on every employee who is injured by "accident arising out of and in the course
of the employment."

Discussing the question of taking rest during rest period, the Bombay High Court clarified in
AIR 1957 Bom 52 that the term employment does not necessarily mean to be on work, it also
extends to all things which a workman is entitled by way of contract of employment,
expressly or impliedly.

The plain reading of the material provision section 3 of the Act, makes it crystal clear that
employer's liability to pay compensation to a workman arises only if the personal injury is
caused to the workman by accident arising out of and in the course of his employment. 13

A workman left the place to collect labourer's salary from P.W.D. Officer and was murdered
while on his way. It was held in Public Works Department v. Kaunsa," 14 that the phrase
"arising out of employment" are wide enough to cover cases where there may be no direct
connection between the injury caused as a result of an accident in the employment on work.
The Court observed that if a particular accident would not have happened to a workman had
he not been employed to work in a particular place and condition, then it is an accident
arising out of employment.

In Saurashtra Salt Manufacturing Co. v. Bai Valu Raja, 15 the Supreme Court while
discussing the scope of section 3 (1) observed that it is now well settled that the employment
of a workman does not commence until he has reached the place of employment and does not
continue when he has left the place of employment, the journey to and from the place of
employment being excluded, is subject to the theory of notional extension of the employers
premises so as to include 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 employers premises. The facts and circumstances of each case
require careful examination for determining if the accident arose out of and in course of
employment keeping in view the theory of notional extension.

It is also equally well settled that when a workman is on a public road or place or transport,
he is there as any other member of the public and is not there in the course of his employment
unless the very nature of his employment makes it necessary for him to be there. A workman
is not in the course of his employment the moment he leaves his house and is on his way to

17
work. He 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 and notional extension outside of which the employer has
no liability for any accident happening to him.

A driver of the Irrigation Survey Department died while on election duty and the
Commissioner awarded the compensation. Elaborating on the point if in the present case the
deceased died in the course of employment of State or not, the Rajasthan High Court
observed in State of Rajasthan v. Smt. Kanta, 16 that under the Scheme of the Act, unless
established by consistent evidence from the employer that the employee did not die in
discharge of his duty, it will be presumed that the employee died in the course of the
employment. The Court held that the driver being on election duty all the 24 hours, died in
the course of employment and his claimants were entitled for compensation.

A workman was cleaning the machinery of his employer on a holiday and met with an
accident. It was held by the Madras High Court in Management of Sree Lalithambika
Enterprises v. S. Kailasam,3 , that the fact of the time of accident being a holiday does not
advance the case of the management in as much as the accident occurred while cleaning the
machinery and must be held to have occurred in the course of employment. The Court upheld
the factual finding.

Discussing the scope of loss in earning capacity the Court held that the loss in earning
capacity should not be confined only to the present capacity because the earning capacity in
future is also an important factor. The continuation of the workman after injury on same
salary is only begging the question. If this were the law, any employer can evade his liability
and provisions of the Act.

A truck was given on hire to 'A' in pursuance of a hire agreement and was not sold. The
cleaner of the truck died because of an accident caused by rash and negligent driving. The
Madhya Pradesh High Court held in Ranibai v. Shamsher Singh4, 17 that 'A' can be said to
working as an agent of the owner of the truck who had the insurance of the truck in his name.
The owner cannot escape liability on the basis of hire agreement. The insurance company
also cannot evade its liability as it is vicariously liable to A on the basis of its insurance
policy. It was held that all the respondents were jointly and severally liable to pay
compensation.

3
1987 55 FLR 129: (1988) 1 LLJ 63
4
1982 74 (129) LLJ 17S

18
Compensation-Quantum-Jurisdiction of Commissioner-Original pleading about quantum-
Raising of fresh contention subsequently.

The High Court observed thus:

"There was no dispute as to the territorial jurisdiction of the court or as to whether the
deceased was a workman or not. The only contention was regarding the amount of
compensation. Under the circumstances, the respondent could not be allowed to raise any
other point beyond the pleadings as given in the reply to the notice. Moreover, both the
contentions raised on behalf of the respondent required the leading of evidence and unless the
same were specifically pleaded and issues framed, the respondent could not be allowed to
raise this point at the stage of arguments. Under the circumstances the High Court opined that
instead of sending the case back for decision on merits to the learned Commissioner, it would
be in the interest of justice to grant a sum of Rs. 8,000 by way of compensation to the
appellant to which the respondent itself admitted in reply to the notice."

In the result, the order of the learned Commissioner was set aside and the appellant was
found entitled to a sum of Rs. 8,000 by way of compensation. 18

A Railway employee travelling back to his residence in a local train after completion of his
duty, in a free pass, met with an accident. Elaborating if the accident was in the course of
employment the Bombay High Court observed in Parvatiammal Dharmalingam v.
Divisional Superintendent, Central Railway, Bombay, 19 that the question was if a railway
employee met with an accident while travelling back from his place of duty to his residence
by a local train using a free pass given by his employer, can the accident be treated to have
taken place in the course of employment within the purview of Section 3. Relying on the
Supreme Court judgment in a similar case of General Manager, BEST Undertaking, Bombay
v. Agnes, 20 in which there were similar circumstances, the Court held that the accident
occurred out of and in the course of the employment and the entitlement to claim was upheld.

A workman, fell down while doing his work and sustained injuries which in course of time
caused total disablement. The employer a building contractor took the plea that the workman
was no longer working with him and that at the time of accident he had no work contract in
the building in which the accident occurred.

The Bombay High Court held in M.S. Varma and Co. v. Ganga Ram Kamta Kevat, 21
that the workman was working in Manisha Building as a workman of the employer for the

19
last one year before the day of accident. The employer's brother was working in the
employment of same employer in the same building on the day of the accident. Both the facts
being incontrovertible the inevitable conclusion is that the employer did have a work contract
in the Manisha Building on the day of the accident. It is also true that, on the day in question
other workman of the employer were working in the building. The Court observed that it was
reasonable to conclude that both of these employees were employees of the same employer
and the injured workman met with an accident resulting in total disablement in the course of
and arising out of his employment.

In another case a workman sustained injury in the course of employment and did not recover
even for a single day to join his duty and ultimately died as a result. The death was
attributable to acceleration of existing ailment due to injury.

The Bombay High Court held in Kalavati Sakharam Ingulrar v. Mahindra Ugine Steel Co.
Ltd., 22 that the Commissioner was not justified in holding that death was not even
attributable to or accelerated by the injury. If the workman was having big stones in both
kidneys for years and nothing had happened he could as well have survived for a few more
years but for the injury. The High Court upheld the entitlement of claim.

The Madhya Pradesh High Court observed that the word "employment" used in Section 3,
Workmen's Compensation Act has a wider meaning than the word "work". The principle of
notional extension of employer's premises was applied in this case and the lower court
followed judgment in Bombay Electric Supply and Transport Undertaking. v. Mrs.
Agnes,5. The deceased was going to attend his duty from his house and on his way met with
an accident. The act of the deceased of going from his house for attending to his duty would
be included in the term "employment" and the trial Court did not err in any way in applying
the notional extension theory in the facts and circumstances of the case. Regarding delay, the
Court observed that the applicant is an illiterate lady and has explained the reasons for delay
to the satisfaction of the trial court.

5
1963 (2) LLJ 615: AIR 1964 SC 193: (1964) 3 SCR 930
20
 CHAPTER-8

CONCLUSION
So, basically after all the research it is found that Workers often sustain an injury or contract
a disease arising out of their employment for which the employer and worker’s compensation
insurer deny worker’s compensation benefits, on the grounds that the worker cannot identify
a specific traumatic event that caused or precipitated the injury or disease. Such a denial may
be contrary to fact and law. It is not always necessary for the worker to be able to identify a
specific event or date of injury for the claim to be compensable. The purpose of this research
work is to explain the concept of “occupational injury or disease,” for which worker’s
compensation benefits may indeed be awarded.

21
 BIBLIOGRAPHY
 Misra, S. N. Labour and Industrial Law. 26th ed. Allahabad: Central Law
Publications, 2011.
 Singh, Dr. Avtar, and Dr.Harpreet Kaur. Introduction to Labour and Industrial Law.
2nd ed. New Delhi: Lexis Nexis Butterworths Wadhwa Nagpur, 2008

22