{"id":22443,"date":"2023-04-25T15:09:31","date_gmt":"2023-04-25T09:39:31","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/gstguntur.com\/?p=22443"},"modified":"2023-04-25T15:13:27","modified_gmt":"2023-04-25T09:43:27","slug":"employees-compensation-act-1923-cs-professional-study-material","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/gstguntur.com\/employees-compensation-act-1923-cs-professional-study-material\/","title":{"rendered":"Employees\u2019 Compensation Act, 1923 &#8211; CS Professional Study Material"},"content":{"rendered":"<p>Chapter 6(A) Employees\u2019 Compensation Act, 1923 &#8211; <a href=\"https:\/\/gstguntur.com\/cs-professional-labour-laws-and-practice-study-material\/\">CS Professional Labour Laws and Practice Notes<\/a>\u00a0is designed strictly as per the latest syllabus and exam pattern.<\/p>\n<h2>Employees\u2019 Compensation Act, 1923 &#8211; CS Professional Labour Laws and Practice Study Material<\/h2>\n<p>Question 1.<br \/>\nWrite short notes on the following:<br \/>\nTheory of notional extension of employment under the Employees\u2019 Compensation Act, 1923. (June 2010, 5 marks)<br \/>\nAnswer:<br \/>\nThe theory of notional extension of employment means that the concept of duty is not limited to the period during which the employee actually starts his work and end when he finally stops at last.<\/p>\n<p>It extends to time and place. The theory is based on the relevance of the phrase in the course of employment. If the presence of a employee is related with somewhere to his employment, and the accident takes place then it would be considered to be arising in course of employment.<\/p>\n<p>Question 2.<br \/>\nWrite short notes on the following:<br \/>\nThe concept of \u2018compensation\u2019 under the Employees\u2019 Compensation Act, 1923. (Dec 2010, 5 marks)<br \/>\nAnswer:<\/p>\n<ul>\n<li>Section 2(1 )(c) of the Employees\u2019 Compensation Act, 1923 defines \u2018Compensation\u2019 to mean.<\/li>\n<li>Schedule II &amp; III provide for the diseases in relation to which the Employee is entitled to receive compensation.<\/li>\n<li>Compensation is to be paid by the employer when Employee (as provided in schedule II) meets with an accident resulting in some disability (as specified in schedule III)<\/li>\n<li>The amount of compensation (calculated using factor specified in schedule IV) needs to be paid as soon as it falls due.<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n<p><img loading=\"lazy\" decoding=\"async\" src=\"https:\/\/gstguntur.com\/wp-content\/uploads\/2021\/10\/GST-Guntur.png\" alt=\"Employees\u2019 Compensation Act, 1923 - CS Professional Study Material\" width=\"123\" height=\"13\" \/><\/p>\n<p>Question 3.<br \/>\nWrite short notes on the following:<br \/>\n\u2018Partial disablement\u2019 under the Employees\u2019 Compensation Act, 1923. (Dec 2011, 5 marks)<br \/>\nAnswer:<\/p>\n<ul>\n<li>Disablement is define as reduction in the capacity to work. Partial Disablement means \u201cany disablement as reduces the earning capacity of an employee as a result of some accident.<\/li>\n<li>Partial Disablement may be<\/li>\n<li>Temporary Disablement<\/li>\n<li>Permanent Disablement<\/li>\n<li>Temporary Partial Disablement is defined under the act as any disablement as reduces the earning capacity of an employee in that employment in which he was engaged at the time of accident.<\/li>\n<li>On the other hand, Permanent partial Disablement has been defined as any disablement which reduces the earning capacity of employee in every employment which he was capable of undertaking at the time of injury.<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n<p>Question 4.<br \/>\nWrite short notes on the following:<br \/>\nThe theory of notional extension of employment under the Employees\u2019 Compensation Act, 1923. (June 2012, 5 marks)<\/p>\n<p>Question 5.<br \/>\nDistinguish between of the following:<br \/>\n\u2019Partial disablement&#8217; and &#8216;total disablement&#8217; under the Employees\u2019 Compensation Act, 1923. (June 2012, 5 marks)<br \/>\nAnswer:<\/p>\n<ul>\n<li>Total Disablement<\/li>\n<li>\u201cTotal disablement\u201d means such disablement whether of a temporary or permanent nature, which incapacitates an employee for all work which he was capable of performing at the time of accident resulting in such disablement.<\/li>\n<li>Total disablement can also be classified as temporary total disablement and Permanent total disablement.<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n<p>Question 6.<br \/>\nDistinguish between the following:<br \/>\n&#8216;Arising out of employment&#8217; and &#8216;arising in the course of employment&#8217; under the Employees\u2019 Compensation Act, 1923. (Dec 2009, 5 marks)<br \/>\nAnswer:<br \/>\nThe term \u2018arising out of employment indicates that there exists some causal connection between the accidental injury and the employment. The casual connection as referred above should be proximate and not remote.<\/p>\n<p>On the other hand, the term \u2018arising in the course of employment\u2019 reflects the fact that at the time of accident, the Employee was employed in the performance of his duties and accident took place at or about the place where he was rendering his services.<\/p>\n<p>Question 7.<br \/>\nDistinguish between the following:<br \/>\n\u2018Partial disablement\u2019 and \u2018total disablement\u2019 under the Employees\u2019 Compensation Act, 1923. (Dec 2010, 5 marks)<\/p>\n<p>Question 8.<br \/>\nDistinguish between the following.<br \/>\n\u2018Arising out of employment\u2019 and \u2018arising in the course of employment\u2019 under the Employees\u2019 Compensation Act, 1923. (June 2013, 5 marks)<\/p>\n<p>Question 9.<br \/>\nDiscuss the following:<br \/>\nTemporary partial disablement&#8217; and &#8216;permanent partial disablement&#8217; under the Employees\u2019 Compensation Act, 1923. (June 2004, 5 marks)<\/p>\n<p>Question 10.<br \/>\n(a) In deciding the liability of employer in case of accident of employee, discuss the concept of national extension of employment. (June 2019, 6 marks)<br \/>\n(b) Discuss in what cases the employer is not liable to pay compensation to employee. (6 marks)<br \/>\nAnswer:<br \/>\n(a) According to Section 3 of the Employee&#8217;s Compensation Act, 1923, to make the employer liable it is necessary that the injury caused to an employee by an accident must have arisen out of and in the course of employment.<\/p>\n<p>It is well settled that the concept of &#8220;duty&#8221; is not limited to the period of time the workman actually commenced his work and the time he downs his tools. It extends further in point of time as well as place. But there must be nexus between the time and place of the accident and the employment. If the presence of the workman concerned at the particular point was so related to the employment as to lead to the conclusion that he was acting within the scope of employment that would be sufficient to deem the accident as having occurred in the course of employment (Weaver v. Tradegar Iron and Coal Co. Ltd.).<\/p>\n<p>It is known as doctrine of notional extension of employment; whether employment extends to the extent of accident depends upon each individual case. A workman while returning home after duty was murdered within the premises of the employer. It was held that there was casual and proximate connection between the accident and the employment.<\/p>\n<p>Since the workman was on spot only for his employment and his wife is entitled for compensation (Naima Bibi v. Lodhne Colliery Ltd.). If an employee in the course of his employment has to be in a particular place by reason where he has to face a peril which causes the accident then the casual connection is established between the accident and the employment (TNCS Corporation v. Poonamalai, 1994 II LLN 950) and principle of notional extension applies.<\/p>\n<p>(b) Proviso to Section 3(1) of the Employee&#8217;s Compensation Act, 1923, specifies that in the following cases, the employer shall not be liable to pay compensation to the employee:<\/p>\n<ol>\n<li>When the injury does not result in disablement for a period exceeding 3 days.<\/li>\n<li>When the injury not resulting in death or permanent total disability is due to any of the following reasons:<\/li>\n<\/ol>\n<p>(a) the employee was at the time of accident, under the influence of drink or drugs, or<br \/>\n(b) the employee wilfully disobeyed an order expressly given or a rule expressly framed for the purpose of securing safety of workers, or<br \/>\n(c) the employee, wilfully disregards or removes any safety guards or safety devices which he knew to have been provided for the safety of the employee.<\/p>\n<p>Thus, where an employee dies due to an accident arising out of and in the course of employment, it cannot be pleaded that death was due to any of the reasons stated from (a) to (c) (R.B. Moondra &amp; Co. v. Mst. Bhanwari).<\/p>\n<p><img loading=\"lazy\" decoding=\"async\" src=\"https:\/\/gstguntur.com\/wp-content\/uploads\/2021\/10\/GST-Guntur.png\" alt=\"Employees\u2019 Compensation Act, 1923 - CS Professional Study Material\" width=\"123\" height=\"13\" \/><\/p>\n<p>Question 11.<br \/>\nDiscuss the right of a woman with regards to payment of maternity benefits. (June 2019, 6 marks)<br \/>\nAnswer:<br \/>\nAccording to Section 5 of the Maternity Benefit Act, 1961, every woman shall be entitled and her employer shall be liable for the payment of maternity benefit at the rate of the average daily wages for the period of her actual absence during the period immediately preceding the day of her delivery, the actual day of her delivery and any period immediately following that day.<\/p>\n<p>For the purpose of calculating average pay, the wages payable to her during the period of 3 calendar months immediately preceding the date from which she absents herself on account of maternity shall be taken into account. The minimum rate of wages shall be such as are fixed or revised under the Minimum Wages Act, 1948 or ten rupees, whichever is the highest.<\/p>\n<p>For the purpose of entitlement to the Maternity Benefit, a minimum eligibility period of actual working of women in such establishment is 80 days during a period of 12 months immediately preceding the date of her expected delivery. For the purpose of calculating the minimum of 80 days of work for the eligibility it is further mentioned that such period shall also include the days on which she was laid-off or it was a holiday declared under any law for the time being in force.<\/p>\n<p>The maximum period of maternity benefit shall be twenty-six weeks of which not more than eight weeks shall precede the date of her expected delivery. The maximum period entitled to maternity benefit by a woman having two or more than two surviving children shall be twelve weeks of which not more than six weeks shall precede the date of her expected delivery.<\/p>\n<p>However if the woman dies during the abovementioned period, the maternity benefit shall be payable only for the days up to and including the day of her death. Further provided that where a woman, having been delivered of a child, dies during her delivery or during the period in which she was entitled to maternity benefit, leaving behind the child, the employer is liable to pay maternity benefit for the entire period, but if the child also dies during the said period, then, for the day upto and including the date of death of the child.<\/p>\n<p>A woman who adopts a child below the age of three months or a commissioning mother shall be entitled to maternity benefit for a period of 12 weeks from the date the child is handed over to the adopting mothers or a commissioning mother, as the case may be.<\/p>\n<p>Question 12.<br \/>\nCritically analyse, is there any right to strike? (June 2019, 12 marks)<br \/>\nAnswer:<br \/>\nArticle 19(1) (c) of the Constitution of India guarantees freedom to form associations and unions, though reasonable restrictions on the freedom may be imposed in the interest of integrity and sovereignty of India, public order and morality. The right to strike in the Indian constitution set up is not absolute right but it flow from the fundamental right to form union enshrined under Article 19(1) of the Constitution. As every other fundamental right is subject to reasonable restrictions, the same is also the case to form trade unions to give a call to the workers to go on strike and the state can impose reasonable restrictions.<\/p>\n<p>In the case of All India Bank Employees Association v. I. T., the Supreme Court held that &#8220;the right to strike or right to declare lock out may be controlled or restricted by appropriate industrial legislation and the validity of such legislation would have to be tested not with reference to the criteria laid down in clause (4) of Article 19 but by totally different considerations.&#8221; Thus, there is a guaranteed fundamental right to form Association or Labour Unions but there is no fundamental right to go on strike. Under the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 the grounds and conditions are laid down for the legal strike and if those provisions and conditions are not fulfilled then the strike will be illegal.<\/p>\n<p>In the case of T K Rangarajan v. State of Tamil Nadu, Supreme Court held that no fundamental right exists with the Government employees to go on strike.<\/p>\n<p>The Trade Unions Act, 1926 provides immunity to the members or office bearers of a registered trade union from civil and criminal actions against certain acts, provided such acts are necessary in carrying out the lawful objectives of the trade union. The immunities provided in the Act provided limited right to strike provided the activities are done in furtherance of trade dispute.<\/p>\n<p>It was held in the case of Shri Ram A Vilas Service Ltd. v. Simson Group Companies Workers Union that so long as the strike does not indulge into acts unlawfully, tortuous court will not interfere with this legitimate right of the labour.<\/p>\n<p>In the case of B. R. Singh v. Union of India (B. R Singh v. Union of India, (1989) 4 SCC 710) the court has recognized &#8220;strike&#8221; as a mode of redress for resolving the grievances of workers.<\/p>\n<p>Conclusion:<\/p>\n<ol>\n<li>Right to strike is not a fundamental right guaranteed by the Indian Constitution.<\/li>\n<li>Right to strike is a statutory right recognized under the Industrial Dispute Acts, 1947 and the Trade Unions Act, 1926.<\/li>\n<\/ol>\n<p>Question 13.<br \/>\nUnder the Workmen\u2019s Compensation Act, 1923 there must be some nexus between the death of workman and his employment in order to make the employer liable to pay compensation. Explain. (Dec 2020, 6 marks)<br \/>\nAnswer:<br \/>\nThe Employees\u2019 Compensation Act, 1923 is a social security legislation. It imposes statutory liability upon an employer to discharge his moral obligation towards his employees when they suffer from physical disabilities and diseases during the course of employment in hazardous working conditions.<\/p>\n<p>The Employees&#8217; Compensation Act, 1923 provides for payment of compensation to the employees and their dependents in the case of injury by industrial accidents including certain occupational diseases arising out of and in the course of employment resulting in death or disablement. The Act provides for cheaper and quicker mode of disposal of disputes relating to compensation through special proceedings than possible under the civil law. There must be some nexus between death of workman and his employment in order to make employer liable to pay compensation.<\/p>\n<p>To make the employer liable it is necessary that the injury caused by an accident must have arisen in the course of employment. It means that the accident must take place at a time and place when he was doing his master\u2019s job.<\/p>\n<p>It is well settled that the concept of \u201cduty\u201d is not limited to the period of time the workman actually commenced his work and the time he downs his tools. It extends further in point of time as well as place. But there must be nexus between the time and place of the accident and the employment. If the presence of the workman concerned at the particular point was so related to the employment as to lead to the conclusion that he was acting within the scope of employment that would be sufficient to deem the accident as having occurred in the course of employment.<\/p>\n<p>It is known as doctrine of notional extension of employment; whether employment extends to the extent of accident depends upon each individual case.<\/p>\n<p>A workman while returning home after duty was murdered within the premises of the employer. It was held that there was casual and proximate connection between the accident and the employment. Since the workman was on spot only for his employment and his wife is entitled for compensation (Naima Bibi v. Lodhne Colliery). If an employee in the course of his employment has to be in a particular place by reason where he has to face a peril which causes the accident then the casual connection is established between the accident and the employment.<\/p>\n<p>Question 14.<br \/>\nA factory worker having heart disease, while coming out of the factory, after four hours of work in the factory, profusely sweated and died aride the factory premises. Is the employer liable to pay compensation? (Dec 2020, 6 marks)<br \/>\nAnswer:<br \/>\nIn the case of Smt. Sunderbai v. The General Manager, Ordinance Factory Khamaria, Jabalpur, 1976 Lac. I.C. 1163 (MP), the Madhya Pradesh High Court has clarified the difference between accident and injury. Accident means an untoward mishap which is not expected or designed by workman, \u2018Injury\u2019 means physiological injury. Accident and injury are distinct in cases where accident is an event happening externally to a man, e.g., where a workman falls from the ladder and suffers injuries. But accident may be an event happening internally to a man and in such cases accident and injury coincide.<\/p>\n<p>Such cases are illustrated by failure of heart and the like, while the workman is doing his normal work. Physiological injury suffered by a workman mainly due to the progress of disease unconnected with employment may amount to an injury arising out of and in the course of employment if the work that the workman was doing at the time of the occurrence of the injury contributed to its occurrence. The connection between employments must be furnished by ordinary strain of ordinary work if the strain did in fact contribute to accelerate or hasten the injury. The burden of proof is on applicant to prove the connection of employment and injury.<\/p>\n<p>In this case, the stress and strain of four hours of work in the factory must be taken to be an accelerating factor to death. The death was the result of the stress and strain, which the workman suffered earlier during the period of work, a connection is established between the employment and his death. In this case death was held to be in the course of employment. [Director DNK Project vs. Stat. D. Buchitalli 1989 14t LLJ 259 (Orissa)].<br \/>\nIn view of the above, the employer is liable to pay compensation.<\/p>\n<p>Question 15.<br \/>\nAttempt the following stating the relevant legal provisions and case law, if any:<br \/>\ncart-man was engaged by a rice mill to carry rice bags from the mill to railway station. The cart-man met with an accident on a public road while returning back and died. The rice mill owner claimed that there was no need to pay compensation as per sections 12,12(1) and 12(4) of the employees\u2019 Compensation Act, 1923. Will he succeed? (June 2004, 3 marks)<br \/>\nAnswer:<\/p>\n<ul>\n<li>No the rice mill owner will not succeed.<\/li>\n<li>The facts are similar to that of Bhuvaneshwari Rice Mills V\/s Mannava Pullayya<\/li>\n<li>In this case it was held that the term &#8216;premises&#8217; would cover in its ambit not only the railway station but even to the adjoining route.<\/li>\n<li>As far as Section 12 of the Employees\u2019 Compensation Act is considered, it clearly cast the responsibility on the owner.<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n<p><img loading=\"lazy\" decoding=\"async\" src=\"https:\/\/gstguntur.com\/wp-content\/uploads\/2021\/10\/GST-Guntur.png\" alt=\"Employees\u2019 Compensation Act, 1923 - CS Professional Study Material\" width=\"123\" height=\"13\" \/><\/p>\n<p>Question 16.<br \/>\nAttempt the following stating the relevant legal provisions and case law, if any:<br \/>\nSonu and Raju are working as &#8216;gardeners&#8217; to look after the garden attached to the bungalow provided by the company to the managing director. Can they be treated as employee? (Dec 2004, 3 marks)<br \/>\nAnswer:<\/p>\n<ul>\n<li>Yes, Sonu and Raju can be regarded as employee since their exist the relationship of master and servant which act as key test criteria to check whether one is to be regarded as employee or not.<\/li>\n<li>As evident from the facts of the question, these gardeners were provided by the company hence, their appointment, termination, remuneration, overall control lies in the hands of the company.<\/li>\n<li>Thus, by virtue of the provision of the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 also, the gardeners fall within the category of employee.<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n<p>Question 17.<br \/>\nAttempt the following stating the relevant legal provisions and case law, if any:<br \/>\nKutumb Ltd. has a factory in a sub-urban place near Chennai. The company nominated the works manager at the factory as its occupier. There was a fire in the factory premises resulting in injuries to workmen. The enquiry revealed that the accident occurred due to the negligence of supervisory personnel. Will the works manager be held liable? (June 2005, 3 marks)<br \/>\nAnswer:<\/p>\n<ul>\n<li>The facts of above question are similar to the case of &#8216;J.K Industries Ltd V. Chief Inspector of factories.<\/li>\n<li>In the above case, the work manager will not be liable.<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n<p>Question 18.<br \/>\nAttempt of the following stating relevant legal provisions and case law, if any:<br \/>\nA driver of a bus was involved in an accident which impaired the movement of his left hand. He claimed compensation for permanent total disablement under the Employees\u2019 Compensation Act, 1923. The employer contested the claim stating that the driver is capable of performing other duties. Will the driver succeed ? (June 2007, 3 marks)<br \/>\nAnswer:<\/p>\n<ul>\n<li>No the driver will not be able to succeed in getting the claimed compensation since the injury incurred in the instant case does not fall within the category of 1st schedule which are accepted to result in permanent total disablement.<\/li>\n<li>The given facts are similar to that of: Divisional Manager KSRTCV\/s Bhimiah<\/li>\n<li>From the facts provided, it is evident that though the accident has impaired the movement of his left and yet the driver is capable of performing other duties.<\/li>\n<li>Even in the case of General Manger, GIP Rly V\/s Shankar it was held that if due to an accident the worker has become disabled and cannot do a particular job but of capable of doing other jobs, he can be entitled to compensation for partial disablement and not permanent total disablement.<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n<p>Question 19.<br \/>\nAttempt the following stating the relevant legal provisions and case law, if any:<br \/>\nA Municipal Board entrusted electrification work of a town to State employees. An employee employed by the State received injuries while doing his work. Who is liable to pay compensation to the employee and why? (Dec 2007, 3 marks)<br \/>\nAnswer:<br \/>\nIn the above case, state will be liable to pay compensation to the employee as in the Act, the employer will be liable, if the work done is a part of the trade or business of the employer. In this case, execution of electrical project is not the ordinary business of the Municipal Board. Hence it is the state &amp; not the board, which is liable to pay compensation to the employee.<\/p>\n<p>Question 20.<br \/>\nAttempt of the following stating relevant legal provisions and decided case law, if any:<br \/>\n(ii) A worker after an accident became partially disabled and could not do his earlier work. However, the employer offered him another kind of job which he could do without any difficulty. Despite the offer of another job, the employee demanded compensation for partial disablement. Will he succeed ?<br \/>\n(iii) An electrician, who had to go frequently to a heating room from a cooling plant, contracted pneumonia which resulted in his death. Will it be construed as \u2018physical injury\u2019 ? (June 2008, 3 marks each)<br \/>\nAnswer:<br \/>\n(ii) Even though the employer has offered the employee who became partially disabled, another job which he could very well carry out even after suffering from disability, the employee remains eligible to claim compensation. Hence, the employee shall succeed in claiming compensation.<\/p>\n<p>(iii) Yes, the electrician shall be entitled to receive compensation for his death on the ground of personal injury since his death was due to pneumonia which was in turn causes by frequent visit to heating and cooling room.<\/p>\n<p>Question 21.<br \/>\nAttempt of the following stating relevant legal provisions and case law, if any:<br \/>\n(ii) The services of employee engaged on casual basis for doing a particular urgent work were terminated after the completion of the said work. Employee sought compensation as the termination amounted to retrenchment. Will they succeed ? (Dec 2008, 4 marks)<br \/>\n(vii) An employee, who was a carpenter, had to get his left arm amputated from elbow in an injury caused in the course of employment. The company paid compensation towards partial permanent disablement. The employee demanded compensation claiming it to be total disablement. Will the employee succeed ? (Dec 2008, 4 marks)<br \/>\nAnswer:<br \/>\n(ii) No, the employee shall not be entitled to claim retrenchment compensation since they were only casual employee. Section 25F provides for the payment of retrenchment compensation to employee who is in continuous service for not less than a year.<\/p>\n<p>(vii) In the above case, the employee (Ramu) got amputated from elbow in an injury. It was decided by the Supreme Court in a famous case of &#8216;Pratap Narain Singh Deo V Sriniwas Sabata that the above facts suggest that it is a total disablement as the carpenter will not be able to carry his work with one hand in this case. It will not be considered as a partial disablement.<\/p>\n<p>Question 22.<br \/>\nAttempt the following stating relevant legal provisions and decided case law, if any:<br \/>\n(ii) Rajat, an employee in a factory, had no vision in his left eye but the defect was not visible. Later, during welding operations, accidentally, a spark hit his blind eye. He lost his eye-ball and the blindness became visible. Though, there was no physical disability, he lost his employment because the defect became visible. Has the accident caused any disablement? Is the employer liable to pay any compensation? (June 2009, 4 marks)<br \/>\n(vii) Rohit lost his mental balance as a result of an injury by accident and committed suicide. Is the employer liable to pay compensation under the employees\u2019 compensation Act, 1923? (June 2009, 4 marks)<br \/>\nAnswer:<br \/>\n(ii) In the above case, Rajat had no vision in his left eye but the defect was not<\/p>\n<p>visible. Later, a spark hit his blind eye and lost his eye-ball and the blindness became visible. He lost his employment as the defect became visible. This accident has resulted in total disablement. The employer will be liable to pay the compensation. The employee will be able to receive compensation from the employer.<\/p>\n<p>Related Case law; Katras Jherriah Cool Co. Ltd v\/s Kamakhya Paul, it was held that where the worker lost his vision of one eye permanently in an accident in course of his employment in colliery the compensation should be assessed in accordance with item 26 part II schedule I.<\/p>\n<p>(vii) If the injury is caused out of and in course of employment then the employee shall be entitled for compensation. In the above case, suicide is caused due to the effect of injury. Hence in the above case, the employer is liable to pay compensation under the employees\u2019 Compensation Act, 1923<\/p>\n<p>Question 23.<br \/>\nAttempt the following stating relevant legal provisions and decided case law, if any;<br \/>\nJugal, a railway employee was ordered to travel to certain station and repair a pipeline there. After finishing the work, Jugal was hurrying across the platform when he slipped and fell and died as a result of the fall. Is the employer liable to pay compensation under the Employees\u2019 Compensation Act, 1923 ? (Dec 2009, 4 marks)<br \/>\nAnswer:<\/p>\n<ul>\n<li>Yes, the employer will be liable to pay compensation to Jugal under the employees\u2019 Compensation Act, 1923 since death of the employee arose out of and in the course of employment.<\/li>\n<li>As per the provisions of employees\u2019 Compensation Act, 1923 an employer is liable to pay any employees\u2019 in case injury is caused to an employee by an accident arising out of and in the course of employment.<\/li>\n<li>Since the death of Jugal who was as railway employee occurred in course of employment the same acts as a valid ground for claiming compensation.<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n<p>Question 24.<br \/>\nAttempt the following stating relevant legal provisions and decided case law, if any:<br \/>\nA driver of bus belonging to the employer was involved in an accident which resulted in the impairment of free movement of his left hand disabling him from driving vehicles. He was, however, capable of performing other work. He claimed compensation contending that the said accident had resulted in permanent disablement of driving vehicles. Will he succeed? (June 2010, 4 marks)<br \/>\nAnswer:<br \/>\nNo. The driver will not succeed<\/p>\n<p>Question 25.<br \/>\nAttempt the following stating relevant legal provisions and decided case law, if any:<br \/>\nSajid lost his mental balance as a result of an injury by accident and committed suicide. Is the employer liable to pay compensation under the employees\u2019 Compensation Act, 1923 ? (Dec 2010, 4 marks)<br \/>\nAnswer:<\/p>\n<ul>\n<li>Yes, the legal heir of Sajid will be entitled to receive compensation<\/li>\n<li>Suicide committed by Sajid was the result of the mental trauma that he suffered on account of injury.<\/li>\n<li>If the injury arises in course of employment, suicide taking place consequently will also be within the scope of employment.<\/li>\n<li>Thus, the employer will be liable to pay compensation under the employees\u2019 Compensation Act, 1923.<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n<p><img loading=\"lazy\" decoding=\"async\" src=\"https:\/\/gstguntur.com\/wp-content\/uploads\/2021\/10\/GST-Guntur.png\" alt=\"Employees\u2019 Compensation Act, 1923 - CS Professional Study Material\" width=\"123\" height=\"13\" \/><\/p>\n<p>Question 26.<br \/>\nAttempt the following stating relevant legal provisions and decided case law, if any:<br \/>\n(iv) An industrial establishment engaged an employee to assist in one or the other operational work incidental to its main industrial operation. However, the employer denied such an employee the status of an employee on the ground that his work was not directly connected with the main operation of the industrial establishment. Can the management do so? Give reasons in support of your answer.<br \/>\n(vi) A bank made certain appointments on regular basis. On scrutiny later on, the bank found that the appointment of an employee was irregular and contrary to its rules. His services were, therefore, terminated. The aggrieved employee approached the court against the termination by the bank. Will he succeed? Give reasons. (Dec 2012, 4 marks each)<br \/>\nAnswer:<br \/>\n(iv) &#8211; In one of the decided cases it was held that, an employee\/workman who is not<\/p>\n<p>directly involve in actual operations of the company, but is involved in operations which are incidental to the main operations of the company then in that case, the employee employed in incidental operations will also be regard as employee and hence will be entitled to all the benefits. Thus in the present case, the employee was engaged to assist in any operation incidental to the main industrial operations, he is an employee and entitled to benefits as such.<\/p>\n<p>(vi)<\/p>\n<ul>\n<li>In the above case, the bank has terminated the services of the employee after duly complying with the rules of the recruitment procedure<\/li>\n<li>The employee will not succeed as held in the case of \u2018Prabhu Dayal Jat Valwar Sehkari Bhumi Vikas Bank Ltd.<\/li>\n<li>It was a fit case of retrenchment\/termination &amp; his termination is lawful.<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n<p>Question 27.<br \/>\nGMC runs a public utility transport service in Lucknow managed by a committee known as Grand Electric Supply and Transport Committee (GEST). GEST owns a number of buses and corporation employs staff including bus drivers for conducting the said service. A bus driver has to drive a bus allotted to him from morning till evening with necessary intervals and for that purpose he has to reach the depot concerned early in the morning and go back to his home after his work is finished and bus is lodged in the depot. GEST permits the staff to travel in a bus without payment of fares, in the morning while coming to duty and in the evening, while going home after the duty.<\/p>\n<p>On November 25<sup>th<\/sup>, 2018, Mr. Arun finished his work for the day at about 8:30 p.m. At Alambagh bus depot, he boarded another bus in order to go to his residence at Gomti Nagar. The said bus collided with stationary lorry parked at an awkward angle near Charbagh. Because of collision, Arun was thrown out on the road and injured. He was sent to hospital for treatment where he expired on December 1<sup>st<\/sup>, 2018. His widow filed an application before Commissioner for workman\u2019s compensation, claiming compensation by reason of death of her husband in an accident which arose \u201cout of and in course of his employment\u201d. State whether she will succeed? (Dec 2019, 6 marks)<br \/>\nAnswer:<br \/>\nAs per Section 3 of the Employee&#8217;s Compensation Act, 1923, to make the employer liable, it is necessary that the injury is caused by an accident which must be arising out of and in the course of employment.<\/p>\n<p>The expression \u201carising out of employment\u201d suggests some causal connection between the employment and the accidental injury. The cause contemplated is the proximate cause and not any remote cause. The expression \u201cin the course of employment\u201d suggests the period of employment and the place of work. In other words, the workman, at the time of accident must have been employed in the performance of his duties and the accident took place at or about the place where he was performing his duties.<\/p>\n<p>The expression \u201cemployment\u201d is wider than the actual work or duty which the employee has to do. It is enough if at the time of the accident the employee was in actual employment although he may not be actually turning out the work. Even when the employee is resting, or having food, or taking his tea or coffee, proceeding from the place of employment to his residence, and accident occurs, the accident is regarded as arising out of and in the course of employment.<\/p>\n<p>A workman while returning home after duty was murdered within the premises of the employer. It was held that there was casual and proximate connection between the accident and the employment. Since the workman was on spot only for his employment and his wife is entitled for compensation [Naima Bibi v. Lodhne Colliery (1920) Ltd., 1977 Lab. I.C. NOC 14]. If an employee in the course of his employment has to be in a particular place by reason where he has to face a peril which causes the accident then the casual connection is established between the accident and the employment (TNCS Corporation v. Poonamalai, 1994 IILLN 950). Hence, the widow of the deceased employee in the present case will succeed in her claim for death compensation.<\/p>\n<p><img loading=\"lazy\" decoding=\"async\" src=\"https:\/\/gstguntur.com\/wp-content\/uploads\/2021\/10\/GST-Guntur.png\" alt=\"Employees\u2019 Compensation Act, 1923 - CS Professional Study Material\" width=\"123\" height=\"13\" \/><\/p>\n<p>Question 28.<br \/>\nThe problem is relating to compensation under section 3 of Workmen\u2019s Compensation Act. The sole point in the matter is whether the accident which occurred on 25<sup>th<\/sup> May, 2018, in the railway Yard at Lucknow and resulted in the loss of both legs of the respondent Mahabir, a machine man employed in the Carriage and Wagon Shops of East Indian Railway. Alambagh, Lucknow, arose \u2018out of and in the course of his employment\u2019 within the meaning of section 3 of the Act.<\/p>\n<p>As facts of case Mahabir lives in Village Mahmudpur which is close to Malhaur railway station on the East Indian Railway. He used to come free of cost to Lucknow junction every morning from Malhaur along with other employees in a workmen\u2019s special provided by the railway and proceed after crossing the lines to the Alambagh Workshop which is at a distance of about a mile from the junction across the railway yard. This was a some what shorter route and it was taken as a matter of routine for going to and coming from the works in preference to a sub-way and two other overbridge routes which were also available.<\/p>\n<p>When the workmen were on night shift, they were provided with special permits for travelling by ordinary passanger trains free of charge between Lucknow junction and Malhaur Station. Mahabir was on duty on the night between the 21<sup>st<\/sup> and 22<sup>nd<\/sup> May, 2018. He finished work at 5.30 a.m. and was returning as usual to the Lucknow junction station over the yard in order to catch the passanger train which left there at 8 a.m. for Malhaur. When he was within a short distance of the station platform, he crossed the line and in doing so he was run over by a shunting engine at about 6.30 a.m. As a result of the accident Mahabir\u2019s legs were crushed and they had to be ultimately amputated.<\/p>\n<p>Mahabir file a case against Works Manager, Carriage and Wagon Workshop for compensation under the Workmen\u2019s Compensation Act, 1923.<br \/>\nAs per section 3 of W.C. Act, 1923 \u201cIf personal injury is caused to a workman by accident arising out of and in the course of his employment, his employer shall be liable to pay compensation.<\/p>\n<p>The expression \u2018out of and in the course of his employment\u2019 occurring in the aforesaid section has been the subject of interpretation in numerous case and it has been found almost a hopeless task to give such a comprehensive or exhaustive meaning as may be applicable to all cases.<\/p>\n<p>In cases, therefore, which arise in consequence of an injury caused to an employee while he is actually engaged in the work for the doing of which he is employed, it is hardly controversial on the ground of interpretation that this matter come under the section of Workman Compensation Act, 1923. The word employment\u2019, however has been given a wider meaning than the word \u2018work\u2019 and it has been universally accepted that a man may be in the course of employment without being actually engaged on work for the doing of which he is engaged.<\/p>\n<p>From what has been said above, it would appear to be a legitimate corollary that what may be called environmental accidents, that is accidents resulting from the surroundings in which the workman is employed or through which he has to reach his place of work in order to carry out his obligations to his employer, may fall within the scope of the phrase arising out of or in the course of his employment.<\/p>\n<p>On the basis of the above facts, answer the following:<br \/>\n(a) Whether the accident of worker is in course of employment?<br \/>\n(b) Whether the principle of notional extension can apply in case? Discuss.<br \/>\n(c) Whether the term accident comes in definition of permanent disablement? Explain.<br \/>\n(d) What are the procedure of Employer\u2019s Liability for Compensation? Discuss.<br \/>\n(e) Discuss the concept of \u2018arising out of and in course of employment\u2019. (Dec 2020, 8 marks each)<br \/>\nAnswer:<br \/>\n(a) As regards personal injury, the employer becomes liable under Section 3 of the Employees\u2019 Compensation Act, 1923, if the injury is caused to an employee by accident arising out of and in the course of his employment.<\/p>\n<p>The expression \u201cin the course of employment\u201d suggests the period of employment and the place of work. In other words, the workman, at the time of accident must have been employed in the performance of his duties and the accident took place at or about the place where he was performing his duties.<\/p>\n<p>The word \u201cemployment\u201d has a wider meaning than work. A man may be in course of his employment not only when he is actually engaged in doing something in the discharge of his duty but also when he is engaged in acts belonging to and arising out of it (Union of India v. Mrs. Noorjahan, 1979 Lab. I.C. 652).<\/p>\n<p>The expression \u201cin the course of employment\u201d covers circumstances under which the accident takes place and the time when it occurred. A causal Connection or association between the injury by accident and employment is necessary. The onus is on the claimant to prove that accident arose out of and in the Course of employment.<\/p>\n<p>The Employment should have given rise to the circumstances of injury by accident. But a direct Connection between the injury caused by an accident and the employment of the workman is not always essential. Arising out of the employment does not mean that 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.<\/p>\n<p>In the present case, the accident of the worker is \u201cin the course of employment\u201d because worker was at the site of accident because of his employment.<\/p>\n<p>Yes in above case accident is in course of employment because there is a casual relationship between the accident and employment. This accident had occurred on account of a risk which is an incident of the employment.<\/p>\n<p>(b) The theory of notional extension of employment is as below:<br \/>\nTo make the employer liable it is necessary that the injury caused by an accident must have arisen in the course of employment. It means that the accident must take place at a time and place when he was doing his master&#8217;s job.<\/p>\n<p>It is well settled that the concept of \u201cduty\u201d is not limited to the period of time the workman actually commenced his work and the time he downs his tools, it extends further in point of time as well as place. But there must be nexus between the time and place of the accident and the employment. If the presence of the workman concerned at the particular point was so related to the employment as to lead to the Conclusion that he was acting within the scope of employment that would be sufficient to deem the accident as having occurred in the course of employment. It is known as doctrine of notional extension of employment.<br \/>\nIn view of the above, Principle of Notional Extension will apply in this case.<\/p>\n<p>(c) The Employees&#8217; Compensation Act, 1923 does not define the word Disablement. It only defines the partial and total disablement.<br \/>\n\u201cPartial disablement can be classified as temporary partial disablement and permanent partial disablement.<\/p>\n<p>(a) where the disablement is of a temporary nature\u2019 Such disablement as reduces the earning capacity of an employee in the employment in which he was engaged at the time of the accident resulting in the disablement and<br \/>\n(b) where the disablement is of a permanent nature such disablement as reduces for all time his earning Capacity in every employment which he was capable of undertaking at the time.<\/p>\n<p>Total disablement means, such disablement whether of a temporary or permanent nature, which in capacitates an employee for all work which he was Capable of performing at the time of accident resulting in such disablement. Permanent total disablement shall be deemed to result from every injury specified in Part I of Schedule I or similarly total disablement shall result from any combination of injuries specified in Part II of Schedule I of the Act.<\/p>\n<p>To make the employer becomes liable under Section 3 of the Employees\u2019 Compensation Act, 1923, the injury must be caused to an employee by accident arising out of and in the course of his employment. The personal injury must be caused by an \u201caccident&#8221;.<\/p>\n<p>The expression accident must be construed to its popular sense. It has been defined as a mishap or an untoward event which is not expected or designed. What the Act intends to cover is what might be expressed as an accidental injury.<br \/>\nIn view of the above the term accident comes in the definition of permanent partial disablement.<\/p>\n<p>(d) Section 3 of the Employee\u2019s Compensation Act, 1923 provides for employers liability for compensation in case of occupational disease or personal injuries and prescribes the manner in which his liability can be ascertained.<\/p>\n<p>The liability of an employer to pay compensation is limited and is subject to the provisions of the Employee\u2019s Compensation Act, 1923. Under section (3)(1) of the Act liability of the employer to pay compensation is dependent upon the following four Conditions:<\/p>\n<ol>\n<li>Personal injury must have been caused to a Workman<\/li>\n<li>Such injury must have been caused by an accident<\/li>\n<li>The accident must have arisen out of and in the Course of employment; and<\/li>\n<li>The injury must have resulted either in, death of the workman or in his total or partial disablement for a period exceeding three days.<\/li>\n<\/ol>\n<p>Further, According to Section 2(1)(c) of the Employee\u2019s Compensation Act, 1923, compensation means compensation as provided for by the Act. Amount of compensation is payable in the event of an employee meeting with an accident resulting into temporary or permanent disability or disease as stated in Schedule II and III in terms of Section 4 of the Act, read with Schedule IV.<\/p>\n<p>No compensation has to be paid in respect of an employee whose injury has resulted in death and no payment of lump sum compensation to a woman or a person under a legal disability except by deposit with the Commissioner. The employer cannot make payment of compensation directly to the deceased legal heirs. It is the Commissioner who decides on the distribution of compensation to the legal heirs of the deceased employee. Compensation to be paid when due and penalty for default.<\/p>\n<p>(e) The expression &#8220;arising out of suggests the cause of accident and the expression in the Course of&#8221; points out to the place and circumstances under which the accident takes place and the time when lit occurred. To make the employer liable, it is necessary that the injury is caused by an accident which must be raised but of and in the course of employment.<\/p>\n<p>The expression \u201carising out of employment\u201d suggests some causal connection between the employment and the accidental injury. The cause contemplated is the proximate cause and not any remote cause. Thus, where a workman suffers from heart disease and dies on account of strain of work by keeping continuously standing or working, held that the accident arose out of employment (Laxmibai Atma Ram v. Bombay Port Trust, AIR 1954 Bom. 180).<\/p>\n<p>In the case of Mackenzie v. I.M. Issak, it was observed that the words \u201carising out of employment&#8217; are understood to mean that during the course of the employment, injury has resulted from some risk incidental to the duties of the service which unless engaged in the duty, owing to the master it is reasonable to believe the workman would not otherwise have suffered. There must be a causal relationship between the accident and employment. If the accident had occurred on account of a risk which is an incident of the employment, the claim for Compensation must succeed unless of course the workman has exposed himself to do an added peril by his own imprudence.&#8221;<\/p>\n<p>In the course of employment means during the currency of employment. In order to succeed in his claim a workman has to prove that he was at the time of injury engaged in the employer&#8217;s business or in furthering that business and was not doing something for his own benefit or accumulation, He must show that he was doing something in discharge of a duty to this employer directly or indirectly imposed upon him by his contract of service.<\/p>\n<p><img loading=\"lazy\" decoding=\"async\" src=\"https:\/\/gstguntur.com\/wp-content\/uploads\/2021\/10\/GST-Guntur.png\" alt=\"Employees\u2019 Compensation Act, 1923 - CS Professional Study Material\" width=\"123\" height=\"13\" \/><\/p>\n<p>Question 29.<br \/>\nCase Study:<br \/>\nThe case is relating to Compensation under Section 3 of Employees\u2019 Compensation Act. In the matter the appeal was filed by the employer against the judgement of the Workmen Compensation Commissioner. The material facts which have given rise to this appeal is briefly stated as mentioned below.<\/p>\n<p>The deceased was employed as a driver on a truck of the appellant which used to carry petrol tank. The deceased reported to the appellant that the tank was leaking upon which the appellant got the tank partly filled with water at night and ordered the deceased to check it on the next morning. On the next morning i.e., on 10th January, 2016, the deceased entered the tank to see from where it leaked and lighted a match stick as a result of which it caught fire and the deceased received burns due to which he succumbed subsequently.<\/p>\n<p>The evidence produced on behalf of respondent was that the match box supplied to the deceased by the appellant. But this fact was denied by the appellant in his deposition and in the opinion of the learned Commissioner it was doubtful that the appellant had given the match box to the deceased though no reasons are given for the aforesaid conclusion Learned Counsel for the appellant contends:<\/p>\n<ol>\n<li>That in the present case the accident did not arise out of and in the course of the deceased\u2019s employment and it occurred due to the \u2018added peril\u2019 that is the lighting of match stick within the petrol tank by him.<\/li>\n<li>That the Commissioner out to have held the Insurance Company i.e., respondent insurance is also liable for compensation.<\/li>\n<li>That after remarriage respondent widow was not entitled to claim compensation because she no longer remained a dependent.<\/li>\n<\/ol>\n<p>In order to appreciate the argument, it would be useful to reproduce the relevant parts of Section 3 of the Employees\u2019 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. Provided that the employer shall not be so liable :<\/p>\n<p>(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;<br \/>\n(b) In respect of any injury not resulting in death, caused by an accident which is directly attributable to :<\/p>\n<ol>\n<li>The employee having been at the time thereof under the influence of drink or drugs or<\/li>\n<li>The willful disobedience of the employee to an order expressly given or to rule expressly framed, for the purpose of securing the safety of employee, or<\/li>\n<li>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 safety of employee.<\/li>\n<\/ol>\n<p>On the basis of the above facts, answer the following:<\/p>\n<p>(a) Whether the accident of employee is in course of employment? (Aug 2021, 8 marks)<br \/>\n(b) Whether the employer can take plea of \u2018added peril\u2019 in his defense? (Aug 2021, 8 marks)<br \/>\n(c) Is the employer liable to pay compensation? (Aug 2021, 8 marks)<br \/>\n(d) Whether dependents will succeed in recovering compensation from the employer? (Aug 2021, 8 marks)<br \/>\n(e) Whether a widow become debarred from claiming compensation? On account of her remarriage? (Aug 2021, 8 marks)<br \/>\nAnswer:<br \/>\n(a) As per Section 3 of the Employee&#8217;s Compensation Act, if personal injury is caused to a workman by accident arising out of and in the course of his employment, his employer shall be liable to pay compensation in accordance with the Act.<br \/>\nProvided that the employer shall not be so liable-<\/p>\n<p>(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;<br \/>\n(b) in respect of any injury not resulting in death, caused by an accident which is directly attributable to :<\/p>\n<ol>\n<li>the employee having been at the time thereof under the influence of drink or drugs, or<\/li>\n<li>the wilful disobedience of the employee to an order expressly given or to rule expressly framed, for the purpose of securing the safety of workman,<\/li>\n<li>the wilful 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 safety of employee.<\/li>\n<\/ol>\n<p>The facts of present case resembles with R.B. Moondra And Co. vs. Mst. Bhanwari &amp; Anr AIR 1970 Raj 111. In the present case it is clear that the deceased was employed as a driver on the appellant&#8217;s truck used for the purpose of carrying petrol in a tank. On the previous day he had reported to the appellant that the tank was leaking and so water was filled in it for detecting the place from where it leaked.<\/p>\n<p>The deceased was asked by the appellant to enter the tank to see from where it leaked. Accordingly, the deceased entered the tank which had no petrol in it, but had been partly filled with water and for the purpose of detecting the place from where it leaked, he lighted a match stick. The deceased was at the place of his work and did something in furtherance of the employer&#8217;s work when the accident occurred. So, it is clear that the accident of employee is in the course of employment.<\/p>\n<p>(b) The principle of &#8216;added peril&#8217; contemplates that if a workman while doing his master&#8217;s work undertakes to do something which he is not ordinarily called upon to do and which involves extra danger he cannot hold his Master liable for the risks arising therefrom. This doctrine, therefore, comes into play only when the workman is at the time of meeting the accident performing his duty. When the employee done an act which is not obliged by him to do and puts himself in dangers, the employer cannot be liable to pay compensation for the injuries caused. Therefore, the injury not caused out of employment, the employer is not entitled to compensate or benefit the employee. However, on the facts of the case the defense of &#8216;added peril\u2019 has no foundation.<\/p>\n<p>It is established in the given problem that the deceased workman had at that time done something which was a part of his job and through a route not forbidden. The meaning of the phrase \u2018added peril\u2019 and its application to cases arising under the Employee&#8217;s Compensation Act and lays down that if the act which the workman was doing was within the scope of his employment, the question of negligence greater or small in doing that act is irrelevant.<\/p>\n<p>This case, therefore, establishes that no matter how negligent or rash the workman&#8217;s action, it arises out of the employment if it is within the scope of his duty as an employee. So, the employer cannot take the plea of &#8216;added peril&#8217; in his defense because extra hazard is not only an &#8216;added peril&#8217; but a needless peril.<\/p>\n<p>(c) According to Section 3 of the Employee\u2019s Compensation Act, 1923, the employer shall not be liable in respect of any injury not resulting in death, caused by an accident which is directly attributable to:<\/p>\n<ol>\n<li>The willful disobedience of the workman to an order expressly given or to rule expressly framed, for the purpose of securing the safety of workman, or<\/li>\n<li>The willful removal or disregard by the workman of any safety guard or other device which he knew to have been provided for the purpose of securing the safety of workmen.<\/li>\n<\/ol>\n<p>It would appear from the above provision that if personal injury is caused to a workman by accident arising out of and in the course of his employment, the employer shall be liable to pay compensation except where injury results in death. Hence, the employer is not liable to pay the compensation.<\/p>\n<p>(d) In order to claim compensation, the employee has to show not only that at the time of the accident he was in fact employed on duties of his employment, but further that the immediate act which led to the accident was within the sphere of his duties and not foreign to them. In case of death of an employee due to accident if it has arisen out of and in the course of his employment it is no defense to plead that there was willful disobedience of any order or rule expressly given or framed for the purpose of securing the safety of the workman. If a workman is doing an act which is within the scope of his employment in a way which is negligent in any degree and is injured by a risk incurred only by that way of doing it he is entitled to compensation.<\/p>\n<p>Looking into the facts of cases there is no doubt that the accident arose out of the deceased&#8217;s employment and the act of lighting the match stick even if it be held as a rash or negligent act, will not debar his dependent from claiming compensation. So, certainly in this matter the dependents will succeed in recovering compensation from the employer.<\/p>\n<p>(e) The widow became debarred from claiming compensation on account of her remarriage has no force because in the Act there is no such provision that after remarriage widow of the deceased would not be regarded as a dependent.<\/p>\n<p>Under Section 21 of the Hindu Adoptions and Maintenance Act, 1956, a widow remains a dependent, within the meaning of that section so long as she is not remarried. But, the definition of &#8216;dependent&#8217; under the Act is not so restricted and the fact that she has remarried will not disentitle her to claim Compensation under the Act.<\/p>\n<p>Question 30.<br \/>\nSaurabh is working in an Iron and Steel Factory. Due to the nature of his job, he has to deal with the hot iron (in semi liquid position) and due to continuous operations in this area, he was gradually loosing the vision in his eyes. Due to low vision, one day, he could not visualise properly and his left hand was burnt badly and as a result his left hand fingers were cut down and doctors advised him not to perform such nature of work in the establishment as it may cause permanent blindness in coming days.<\/p>\n<p>The employer then posted him in clerical section of the factory where no such manufacturing activities are being carried on.<\/p>\n<p>Saurabh claimed compensation from the employer since his nature of work was the only reason, due to which, he got serious injury of loosing fingers of left hand. Whether the employer is liable to pay any compensation to Saurabh? If so, under which provisions of the Act and on what grounds?(June 2022, 6 marks)<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>Chapter 6(A) Employees\u2019 Compensation Act, 1923 &#8211; CS Professional Labour Laws and Practice Notes\u00a0is designed strictly as per the latest syllabus and exam pattern. Employees\u2019 Compensation Act, 1923 &#8211; CS Professional Labour Laws and Practice Study Material Question 1. Write short notes on the following: Theory of notional extension of employment under the Employees\u2019 Compensation &hellip;<\/p>\n<p class=\"read-more\"> <a class=\"\" href=\"https:\/\/gstguntur.com\/employees-compensation-act-1923-cs-professional-study-material\/\"> <span class=\"screen-reader-text\">Employees\u2019 Compensation Act, 1923 &#8211; CS Professional Study Material<\/span> Read More &raquo;<\/a><\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":3,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"spay_email":"","footnotes":""},"categories":[165],"tags":[],"jetpack_featured_media_url":"","_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/gstguntur.com\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/22443"}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/gstguntur.com\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/gstguntur.com\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/gstguntur.com\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/3"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/gstguntur.com\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=22443"}],"version-history":[{"count":6,"href":"https:\/\/gstguntur.com\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/22443\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":22448,"href":"https:\/\/gstguntur.com\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/22443\/revisions\/22448"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/gstguntur.com\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=22443"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/gstguntur.com\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=22443"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/gstguntur.com\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=22443"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}