Home | ARTS | Business Environment and Law
|
Employer’s Liability For Compensation - Workmen’s Compensation Act, 1923
Business Environment and Law-Workmen’s Compensation Act, 1923
Employer’s Liability For Compensation - Workmen’s Compensation Act, 1923
Posted On :
Section. 3 provides for employer’s liability to pay compensation to a workman. It lays down that the following conditions must exist before an employer may be held liable to pay compensation to a workman
Employer’s
Liability For Compensation
Section. 3 provides for employer’s liability to pay compensation to a workman. It lays down that the following conditions must exist before an employer may be held liable to pay compensation to a workman
1. Some personal injury must have been caused to a workman;
2. Such an injury must have been caused by an accident;
3. The accident must have arisen out of and in the course of employment; and
But the employer shall not be liable (except in the case of the injury resulting in the workman’s death) to pay compensation in the following cases
1. If the injury did not result in total or partial disablement of the workman for a period exceeding three days;
2. If the workman was at the time of the accident under the influence of drink or drug, or
3. If the workman willfully disobeyed an order expressly given or a rule expressly framed for the purpose of securing safety of workman; or
4. If the workman willfully removed or disregarded any safety guard or other device which to his knowledge was provided for the purpose of securing his safety.
In the case of disease, no compensation shall be payable to a workman in respect thereof, unless the same is directly attributable to an injury caused by an accident arising out of and in the course of his employment.
But in respect of the occupational diseases, specified in Schedule III of the Act, contracted by a workman, it shall be presumed that the contracting of the disease amounts to an injury caused by an accident arising out of and in the course of his employment.
An accident arising out of employment implies a ‘casual connection’ between the injury and the accident and the work done in the course of employment. Employment should be the distinctive and the proximate cause of the personal injury whether physical or mental. In the case Dennis Vs White, (1917) A.C.479, it was laid down that “when a man runs a risk incidental to his employment and is thereby injured, the injury arises out of employment.”
It suggests duration of employment or the period of time during which the employment continues. In the case Saurastra Salt Mfg. Co. Vs Bai Balu
Raja (1958) SC 881, the Supreme Court held “as a rule 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”.
Following points in this connection are important to note.
1. All movements of a worker from one place to another whether within the premises of the employer or to the premises of some other person in connection with the employment alone shall be taken to be the course of his employment.
2. A person who is busy in performing his duty, under the terms of his employment, at any place, shall be taken to be working in the course of employment.
3. Break for rest, refreshment, etc., within the premises of the employer is regarded as incidental to work and the worker is supposed to be in the course of his employment even for that period.
4. When the workman uses transport provided by the employer for the purpose of going to and from the place of work, he is deemed to be in the course of employment during the time when he uses the transport. [Holmes Vs Great Northern Railway (1900) 2 Q.B.409].
Section. 3 provides for employer’s liability to pay compensation to a workman. It lays down that the following conditions must exist before an employer may be held liable to pay compensation to a workman
1. Some personal injury must have been caused to a workman;
2. Such an injury must have been caused by an accident;
3. The accident must have arisen out of and in the course of employment; and
4. The injury must have resulted
either in the death of the workman or in his total or partial disablement for a
period exceeding three days.
But the employer shall not be liable (except in the case of the injury resulting in the workman’s death) to pay compensation in the following cases
1. If the injury did not result in total or partial disablement of the workman for a period exceeding three days;
2. If the workman was at the time of the accident under the influence of drink or drug, or
3. If the workman willfully disobeyed an order expressly given or a rule expressly framed for the purpose of securing safety of workman; or
4. If the workman willfully removed or disregarded any safety guard or other device which to his knowledge was provided for the purpose of securing his safety.
In the case of disease, no compensation shall be payable to a workman in respect thereof, unless the same is directly attributable to an injury caused by an accident arising out of and in the course of his employment.
But in respect of the occupational diseases, specified in Schedule III of the Act, contracted by a workman, it shall be presumed that the contracting of the disease amounts to an injury caused by an accident arising out of and in the course of his employment.
Accident Out Of Employment
An accident arising out of employment implies a ‘casual connection’ between the injury and the accident and the work done in the course of employment. Employment should be the distinctive and the proximate cause of the personal injury whether physical or mental. In the case Dennis Vs White, (1917) A.C.479, it was laid down that “when a man runs a risk incidental to his employment and is thereby injured, the injury arises out of employment.”
Accident In The Course Of Employment
It suggests duration of employment or the period of time during which the employment continues. In the case Saurastra Salt Mfg. Co. Vs Bai Balu
Raja (1958) SC 881, the Supreme Court held “as a rule 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”.
Following points in this connection are important to note.
1. All movements of a worker from one place to another whether within the premises of the employer or to the premises of some other person in connection with the employment alone shall be taken to be the course of his employment.
2. A person who is busy in performing his duty, under the terms of his employment, at any place, shall be taken to be working in the course of employment.
3. Break for rest, refreshment, etc., within the premises of the employer is regarded as incidental to work and the worker is supposed to be in the course of his employment even for that period.
4. When the workman uses transport provided by the employer for the purpose of going to and from the place of work, he is deemed to be in the course of employment during the time when he uses the transport. [Holmes Vs Great Northern Railway (1900) 2 Q.B.409].
Tags : Business Environment and Law-Workmen’s Compensation Act, 1923
Last 30 days 822 views
