Workmen’s Compensation Act, 1923 – 2, Study notes of Business Administration

Download Workmen’s Compensation Act, 1923 – 2 and more Study notes Business Administration in PDF only on Docsity! 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 (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 he 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]. OCCUPATIONAL DISEASE In a civil suit for damages, the employer can put forward all the defences available to him under the law of torts. Moreover, a civil suit is a risky and costly affair. A claim under the Workmen’s Compensation Act, 1923 is safe and less costly. APPEAL (Sec.30) Under Section 30 of the Act, an appeal lies to the High Court from following orders of the Commissioner: (a) An order awarding as compensation, a lump sum whether by way of redemption of a half-monthly payment or otherwise or disallowing a claim in full or in part for a lump-sum. (b) An order awarding interest or penalty; (c) An order refusing to allow redemption of half-monthly payment; 359 (d) An order providing for the distribution of compensation among the dependants of a deceased workman, or disallowing any claim of a person alleging himself to be such dependent; (e) An order allowing or disallowing any claim for the amount of an indemnity under the provisions of Section 12 (2); (f) An order refusing to register a memorandum of agreement of registering the same or providing for the registration of the same subject to conditions. According to the first proviso to this section, no appeal lies against any order unless a substantial question of law is involved, and in the case of an order other than an order refusing to allow redemption of a half-monthly payment, the amount in dispute is not less than three hundred rupees. An appeal will not also lie, if the parties have agreed to abide by the decision of the Commissioner, or in which the order of the Commissioner gives effect to an agreement between the parties. No appeal by an employer under clause (a) above shall lie, unless the memorandum of appeal is accompanied by a certificate by the Commissioner to the effect that the appellant has deposited with him the amount payable under the order appealed against. The period of limitation for an appeal is 60 days, and the provisions of Section 5 of the Indian Limitation Act, 1908, will also apply to appeal under this section.