LABOUR AND INDUSTRIAL LAW – II

(6BAL/BBL665)
3rd year BALLB/ BBALLB
(VI Semester)
 UNIT- 1

THE EMPLOYEES’
COMPENSATION ACT, 1923
Principles of Industrial Jurisprudence
• Social Justice
• Natural Justice
• Equity (the quality of being fair and impartial)
• National Economy
• Constitutional Norms
• Welfare of Labour
• Laches (unreasonable delay in asserting a claim,
which may result in its dismissal)
• Vicarious Liability
The Employees’ Compensation Act, 1923
• 36 Sections and IV Schedules

• Chapter I- Preliminary
• Chapter II- Employees’ Compensation
• Chapter III- Commissioners
• Chapter IV- Rules
 The Employees’ Compensation Act, 1923

1) SCHEDULE I — List of injuries deemed to result in

permanent total disablement.

2) SCHEDULE II — List of persons who, subject to the

provisions of section 2 (1) (dd ),’ are included in the
definition of employees.

3) SCHEDULE III — List of occupational diseases.

4) SCHEDULE IV — Factors for working out lump sum

equivalent of compensation amount in case of
permanent disablement and death.
 Object and Scope of the Act
• The Employees Compensation Act, 1923 extends to the whole
of India.
• It came into force on the first day of July, 1924. It is social
security legislation.
• The Employees Compensation Act, 1923 imposes statutory
liability upon an employer to discharge his obligation towards
employees when they suffer from any physical disabilities or
diseases, during the course of employment in hazardous
working conditions.
• The aim of the Act is to provide quick and cheaper disposal of
disputes relating to the compensation which is not possible in
comparison in case of proceedings of civil law. The Act also
helps the dependants to get relieved from the hardship, rising
from accident.
 Coverage of the Act
Applicable to:
• Mines
• Factories
• Plantations
• Transport Establishments
• Construction Works
• Railways
• Ships
• Circuses
Not applicable to:
• Members of armed forces of union
• Employees covered by ESI Act, 1948. (Dependant’s benefits
available)
• Casual Workers & workers employed otherwise than for employer's
trade or business
 Definitions{Sec.2}
• Commissioner
• Dependant
• Employer
• Disablement
• Wages
• Employee
 Commissioner (Sec.2(1)(b)
• A Commissioner means a Commissioner for
employees’ Compensation appointed under
section 20.

Compensation [Sec. 2 (1) (c)]

• It means compensation as provided for by this
Act.
 DEPENDANT Sec. 2(1)(d)
Dependants
Section 2(1) )Wholly dependant on Dependant- wholly or in part
dependent means:-
(d
-whether the earnings of the dependant on the earnings of the
actually so employees at the employee at the time of death
or not time of death

(a) a widow, a son or a daughter who has (a) a widower,

(b)a minor attained the age of 18 years (b) a parent other than a widowed mother,
legitimate or and who is infirm (c)a minor illegitimate son, an unmarried
adopted son, illegitimate daughter or a daughter legitimate
(c)unmarried or illegitimate or adopted if married and a
legitimate or minor or if widowed and a minor,
adopted (d)a minor brother or an unmarried sister or a
daughter, or widowed sister if a minor,
(d)a widowed (e) a widowed daughter-in-law,
mother (f) a minor child of a pre-deceased son,
(g) a minor child of a pre-deceased daughter
where no parent of the child is alive, or
(h)a paternal grandparent if no parent of the
workman is alive.
 Employer(Sec 2(1)(e))
• i) any body of persons whether incorporated or not;
• ii) any managing agent of an employer;
• iii) legal representative of a deceased employer;
• iv) any workman whose services are temporarily lent or
let on hire to another person, by the person with whom
the workman has entered into a contract of service or
apprenticeship; means such other person while the
workman is working for him;

• A contractor falls within the above definition of the

employer.
 Disablement
• Disablement means any loss of capacity to work
or move;
• May result in loss or reduction of his earning
capacity.
• Disablement may be -
- Total {sec.2.1(g)}
- Partial {sec 2.1(l)}
- Temporary
- Permanent
 Types of Disablement
The Act does not define the word disablement. But it defines the partial and total
disablement.
(i) “Partial disablement” means,
• a) where the disablement is of a temporary in nature, such disablement as
reduces the earning capacity of a workman in any employment in which he was
engaged at the time of the accident resulting in the disablement, and
• b) where the disablement is of a permanent nature, such disablement as reduces
his earning capacity in every employment which he was capable of undertaking at
that time: Provided that every injury specified in Part II of Schedule I shall be
deemed to result in permanent partial disablement.
• In case of temporary partial disablement, the disablement results in reduction of
earning capacity in respect of only that employment in which he was engaged at
the time of accident. This means the workman's earning capacity in relation to
other employment is not affected. But in case of permanent partial disablement,
the disablement results in reduction in his earning capacity is not only the
employment in which he was engaged at the time of accident but in all other
employment.
 Types of Disablement
(ii) “Total disablement” means such disablement,
whether of a temporary or permanent nature, as
incapacitates a workman for all work which he was
capable of performing at the time of the accident
resulting in such disablement.
• Provided that permanent total disablement shall be
deemed to result from every injury specified in Part I
of Schedule I or from any combination of injuries
specified in Part II thereof where the aggregate
percentage of the loss of earning capacity, as specified
in the said Part II against those injuries, amounts to
one hundred per cent or more.
 Case laws on Disablement
1) Janardhan K. v. United India Insurance Co. Ltd & Anr
(2008 II LLJ 960 (SC) (Total Disablement)
• The claimant- appellant a tanker driver, while driving his vehicle from Ayanoor towards
Shimoga met with an accident with a tractor coming from the opposite side. As a result of
the accident, the appellant suffered serious injuries and also an amputation of the right
leg up to the knee joint. He thereupon moved an application before the Commissioner for
Workmen's Compensation praying that as he was 25 years of age and earning Rs. 3,000/-
per month and had suffered 100% disability, he was entitled to a sum of Rs. 5 lakh by way
of compensation.

• The Commissioner in his order dated 18th November, 1999 observed that the claimant
was 30 years of age and the salary as claimed by him was on the higher side and
accordingly determined the same at Rs. 2000/- per month. The Commissioner also found
that as the claimant had suffered an amputation of his right leg up to the knee, he was
said to have suffered a loss of 100% of his earning capacity as a driver and accordingly
determined the compensation payable to him at Rs. 2,49,576/- and interest @ 12% p.a.
thereon from the date of the accident.
• An appeal was thereafter taken to the High Court by the
Insurance Company. The High Court accepted the plea raised
in appeal that as per the Schedule to the Workmen's
Compensation Act, the loss of a leg on amputation amounted
to a 60% reduction in the earning capacity and as the doctor
had opined to a 65% disability, this figure was to be accepted
and accordingly reduced the compensation as already
mentioned above. It is in this circumstances, that the
aggrieved claimant appealed to the SC.
• The SC held that the appellant has also suffered a
100% disability and incapacity in earning as a tanker
driver as his right leg had been amputated from the
knee. Additionally, a perusal of Sections 8 and 9 of
the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 would show that the
appellant would now be disqualified from even
getting a driving licence and set aside the judgment
of the High Court and restore that of the
Commissioner.
2) General Manager G.R.P Railway, Bombay v.
Shankar(1950) (MP HC) (Partial Disablement)

• A Railway servant working on A-1 post lost one eye and

two teeth as a result of collision b/w two engines. He was
declared by the medical officer as unfit for A-1 and A-2
jobs but fit for C-3 job because of his defective vision. Class
C-2 job was offered to him by the Railway administration.
He refused the offer and claimed compensation on the
basis of total disablement.
• It was held that the employee was entitled for
compensation not on the basis of total but partial
disablement.
• Where the disablement is of a temporary nature and
reduces the earning capacity of a workman in the
employment in which he was engaged at the time of
the accident it is "temporary partial disablement”.
3) Mohan Soni v. Ram Avtar Tomar and Ors.
(2012) II LLJ 554 (SC) (Total Disablement)
• The appellant a cartpuller, was hit by Motor Vehicle as a result of
which he suffered injury and his left leg below the knee was
amputated. The Motor Accidents claim Tribunal as well as the HC
didn’t grant adequate compensation. Hence, he preferred appeal
to the SC.
• The SC held that for a cartpuller like the appellant loss of one leg
would be end of the road in so far as his earning capacity was
concerned unlike a person engaged, say in some desk work in a
office.
• The Courts below erred in pegging down the disability appellant to
50% with reference to Schedule 1 of WC Act, 1923. Therefore, it
was held that the loss of earning capacity might be as high as 100%
but in no case it would be less than 90%. Consequently,
compensation of total sum of 4.01 lakh was awarded to appellant
with interest @ rate of 9% per annum from date of filling of claim
petition.
 Wages{ Sec.2.1(m)}
• “wages” includes any privilege or benefit which is
capable of being estimated in money, other than
travelling concession or a contribution paid by the
employer to the workman towards any pension or
provident fund or a sum paid to a workman to cover
any special expenses entailed to him by the nature of
his employment.
 Employee-Sec.2(1)(dd)
Any person who is:

• (i) a railway servant as defined in clause (34) of section 2 of the Railways Act, 1989 (24
of 1989), not permanently employed in any administrative district or sub-divisional
office of a railway and not employed in any such capacity as is specified in Schedule II;
or
• (ii) (a) a master, seaman or other members of the crew of a ship,
• (b) a captain or other member of the crew of an aircraft,
• (c) a person recruited as driver, helper, mechanic, cleaner or in any other capacity in
connection with a motor vehicle,
• (d) a person recruited for work abroad by a company, and who is employed outside
India in any such capacity as is specified in Schedule II and the ship, aircraft or motor
vehicle, or company, as the case may be, is registered in India; or
• (iii) employed in any such capacity as is specified in Schedule II, whether the contract
of employment was made before or after the passing of this Act and whether such
contract is expressed or implied, oral or in writing;
• but does not include any person working in the capacity of a member of the Armed
Forces of the Union; and any reference to any employee who has been injured shall,
where the employee is dead, include a reference to his dependents or any of them.
 1) State of Kerala v. Khadeeja Beevi
(Kerala HC, 1988)

• The applicant's husband Abdul Khadir was a mahout (a person who works with,
rides, and tends an elephant ). He was a Government employee. On 18th July,
1985 he was attacked and injured by an elephant. He died on 20th July, 1985 as
a result of the injuries sustained by him in the course of and arising out of his
employment. The applicant stated that Abdul Khadir was aged 42 at the time of
his death, and that he was drawing a monthly wages of Rs. 900/-, She claimed
a compensation of Rs. 60,394/- from the opposite parties. The Kerala Govt.
admitted that Abdul Khadir was employed as a mahout in the Forest
Department and that he died on 20th July, 1985 due to the attack of an
elephant.
• However, it was argued that the deceased was a regular Government employee
who was covered by family pension, general provident fund and family benefit
schemes of the State Government and so he cannot be deemed to be a workman
as defined in Section 2(1)(n) of the Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923.
The Commissioner held that Abdul Khadir was a workman as defined
in Section 2(1)(n) of the Act. He further found that the injuries caused to
Abdul Khadir on 18th July, 1985, which resulted in his death was in the
course of and arising out of employment. The monthly salary of the
deceased was fixed at Rs. 828/- at the age of 42 years. On this basis, the
compensation was worked at Rs. 59,115/- payable by the 1st opposite
party, D.F.O. Thenmalai. The Govt. appealed to HC.

The Kerala HC held that a govt. servant who is employed as “Mahout” in

the forest Dept. is also treated as employee under this Act even if he is
covered by family pension, GPF, & family benefits scheme under the
govt. The Commissioner was justified in awarding the compensation Rs.
59,115/-
2) New India Assurance Co. Ltd. v. Mohan Kumar
Sahu (Orisaa HC, 2004)

• This appeal' under Section 30 of the Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923 is at the
instance of the insurer challenging the award passed by the Deputy Labour
Commissioner and Commissioner for Workmen's Compensation, Rourkela.
• The question of law that arises for consideration in this appeal is whether the
deceased being engaged for one day to drive the vehicle of the owner can be
construed to be a workman under the Workmen's Compensation Act?
• The claimant before the Commissioner for Workmen's Compensation claiming
compensation for the death of her husband namely Bisen alias Biswanath
Mahanta, who died in a motor vehicular accident. The case of the claimant before
the W.C. Commissioner was that her husband was employed as a driver by
present respondent. No.l. Mohan Kumar Sahoo of Naranpur, in the district of
Keonjhar. On 27.12.1393 he received personal injury due to an accident arising
out of and in course of his employment and while he was being treated in the
Government Hospital, Keonjhar succumbed to the injury on 4.1.1994.
• The claimant claimed for a sum of Rs. 1,00,000/-. The owner of the vehicle
filed his written statement disclosing therein that the deceased Bisen alias
Biswanath Mahanta was employed by him in his Bus bearing registration
No. ORJ- 7401 only for a day, i.e., 27.12.1992 in absence of his regular
driver and he was paid Rs. 70/- for that day as wages including food
charges. On 27.12-1992 the said bus met with an accident being collided
with a truck, ultimately resulting in the death of the deceased driver.
• There was no factual dispute that the vehicle was validly insured with the
present appellant and the date of accident was covered under a valid
insurance policy. The insurer also contested the proceeding before the W.C.
Commissioner by filing written statement admitting the factum of valid
insurance of the vehicle in question disclosing the policy number, but it
denied to accept the liability on several grounds, one of which being that it
is not liable to indemnify the compensation as it had no knowledge about
the employment of the deceased, his age, wages and more specifically there
was absence of master and servant relationship between the insured and the
deceased.
The Orissa HC held that a person engaged for one day to drive
vehicle of the owner is also the employee in this Act. The
Owner have definite control over the person. The person was
driving the vehicle on the direction of the owner of the
vehicle. His engagement for one day only will not throw him
out of the definition of Employees u/s 2(n) of the EC Act.
Out of the awarded amount. Rs. 60,000/- shall be kept in a
fixed deposit in the name of the claimant for a period of five
years and the balance amount shall be paid to her by way of
an account payee cheque. It is stated that the awarded
amount has been deposited after the expiry of thirty days. The
insurer is directed to pay the interest as provided under the
Employees’ Compensation Act from the date of award till the
date of deposit. The interest component will be deposited
within a period of six weeks. On depositing the interest
component, the entire interest component shall be kept in a
non-encumberable fixed deposit in the name of the claimant
for five years.
3) Radhamony v. Secretary, Department of Home
Affairs (Ker HC)1995

The question that arises for consideration is whether the legal heirs of the
deceased, a Driver in the Police Department, are entitled to compensation
under the Act or not?
• Appellants are the legal representatives of Bhaskaran Nair, a Driver in the Police
Department of the State of Kerala. The jeep driven by him KLC 2209 met with an
accident on October 24, 1989 and he sustained injuries. He succumbed to the injuries on
October 26, 1989. Compensation is claimed by the appellants on the ground that the
deceased met with his death while driving the jeep in the course of his employment under
the respondent. The Commissioner, Workmen's Compensation, held that the deceased
was not a workman coming within the definition under Section 2(1)(n) of the
Workmen's Compensation Act and declined to award any compensation.

• The deceased aged 45 years was getting Rs. 1,656/- as monthly salary. This is not a
matter in dispute. Though the first appellant (wife of the deceased) had sent a registered
notice to the respondent on February 13, 1990 claiming compensation, there was no
favourable response. Respondent's contention is that Driver in the Police Department is
not a workman coming within the purview of the Act and since he had performed only
the sovereign functions of the State in the maintenance of law and order, it cannot be said
that appellants are entitled to any compensation under the Act.
• The Kerala HC held that the Commissioner erred in holding that the
function of the deceased was one to be carried out by the Department
itself which is purely sovereign and as the deceased was not a workman
his legal representatives are not entitled to any compensation. A Person
employed as driver comes under the category of employees irrespective
of the position whether he is a non-govt. employee or govt. employee.

• For the purpose of quantifying the compensation the maximum amount

that can be taken into consideration is only Rs. 1,000/- in view of
Explanation II to Section 4 even though the deceased was getting salary
of Rs, 1,656/-per month. As he was aged 45 years, he would be entitled to
Rs. 1000 x 40/100 x 169.44. That would come to Rs. 67,776/-. The claim
in the petition is only for Rs. 66,756/-.

• The HC held that that the appellants are entitled to Rs. 67,776/- as
compensation with interest at 6% from the date of petition viz. April 25,
1990 till realization.
 Employer’s Liability (Sec.3)
• To compensate any employee:
• Who has suffered an accident arising out of and in
the course of his employment, resulting into:
(i) death,
(ii) permanent total disablement,
(iii) permanent partial disablement,
(iv) temporary disablement whether total or
partial, or
• who has contracted an occupational disease.
 Employer’s Liability
However the Employer shall not be liable to pay
compensation -
• In respect of any injury which does not result in the total or
partial disablement of the workmen for a period exceeding
three days;
• In respect of any injury not resulting in death, caused by an
accident which is directly attributable to -
• the workmen having been at the time thereof under the
influence of drugs, or
• the willful disobedience of the workman to an order expressly
given, or to a rule expressly framed, for the purpose of
securing the safety of workmen, or
• the willful removal or disregard by the workmen of any
safeguard or other device which he knew to have been
provided for the purpose of securing the safety of
workmen.

• The burden of proving intentional disobedience on the part

of the employee shall lie upon the employer.

• when the employee has contacted a disease which is not

directly attributable to a specific injury caused by the
accident or to the occupation; or

• When the employee has filed a suit for damages against the
employer or any other person, in a Civil Court.
 Condition for receiving compensation for
Personal Injury
• The three tests for determining whether an accident arose
out of employment are :
a) At the time of injury workman must have been engaged in
the business of the employer and must not be doing
something for his personal benefit;
b) That accident occurred at the place where he was
performing his duties; and
c) Injury must have resulted from some risk incidental to the
duties of the service, or inherent in the nature or condition
of employment.
• Mr. X has been working for the purpose of the road
construction of village panchayat undertaken by the
Madhya Pradesh Rural Development Committee
(MPRDC) under the Mahatma Gandhi National Rural
Employment Guarantee Act, 2005 (MNREGA).

• Mr. X has become unconscious during the course of

employment and died on January 4, 2021. The said work
was undertaken under the road constructed by the
employer, and during course of employment become
unconscious and died on 04/01/2021. Whether Mr. X is
entitled to get any compensation from the MPRDC?
• Section 28 of MGNREGA, 2005 shall have overriding effect
over the provision of Employees’ Compensation, 1923 and by
virtue of Clause -26 of Schedule II enacted under Section 5 of
MGNREGA, 2005, the workmen/labourers will be entitled only
for ex gratia payment @ Rs.25,000 in case of death or such as
amount as may be notified by the Central Government and
the application before the Commissioner under the
provisions of EC Act, 1923 claiming compensation over and
above the amount of ex gratia payable under the scheme of
the Act of 2005 would not be maintainable.
 The General Principles
• There must be a causal connection between the injury and
the accident and the work done in the course of employment;
• The onus is upon the applicant to show that it was the work
and the resulting strain which contributed to or aggravated
the injury;
• It is not necessary that the workman must be actually working
at the time of his death or that death must occur while he
was working or had just ceased to work; and
• Where the evidence is balanced, if the evidence shows a
greater probability which satisfies a reasonable man that the
work contributed to the causing of the personal injury it
would be enough for the workman to be entitled.
• But where the accident involved a risk common to all
humanity and did not involve any peculiar or exceptional
danger resulting from the nature of the employment or
where the accident was the result of an added peril to which
the workman by his own conduct exposed himself, which peril
was not involved in the normal performance of the duties of
his employment, then the employer will not be liable.
1) J.F. Pareira v. Eastern Watch Co. Ltd. (1985) I LLJ 472
(Bom HC )
• On 4th February, 1974 Pareira reported on duty in the
morning worked as usual till 4.00 p.m. when he left the
shop telling his co-worker Jessie Roberts that he would
be back within five minutes. As Pareira did not come
back for about half an hour Jessie became apprehensive.
• At that time someone from the first floor came to the
shop and told Jessie that Anthony Pareira had fallen
unconscious on the third floor. The partners of the firm
were informed and some of the employees of the firm
went upstairs o render assistance but were told that
Pareira was removed to the hospital.
• Pareira, after being admitted, died in the hospital and Dr.
Sushil Raj who conducted the post-mortem examination
found that Pareira died as a result of acute coronary in
sufficiency, that the heart of the deceased was dilated and
showed areas of infraction.
• The Second Additional Commissioner for Workmen's
Compensation, Bombay, before whom the application for
compensation was filed having dismissed it, the present
appeal has been preferred under section 30 of the
Workmen's Compensation Act.
• The HC held that the employee would be deemed to be on
the premises of the employer by the notional extension of the
term “premises” and accident to him shall be deemed to be
arisen in the course of employment unless and until it can be
shown that he went out for personal reasons.
 Doctrine of Notional Extension
• The expression in the course of his employment', connotes not
only actual work but also any other engagement natural and
necessary thereto, reasonably extended both as regards
work-hours and work-place. It refers to the time during which
the employment continues.
• However, 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 re-passes in going to and in leaving the
actual place of work. There may be some reasonable extension
in both time and place and a workman may be regarded as in
the course of his employment even though he had not reached
or had left his employer's premises. This is also called as the
Doctrine of Notional Extension.
• The doctrine of notional extension could not be placed in a strait
jacket; it is merely a matter of sound common sense as to when
and where and to what extent this doctrine could be applied.
1) SAIL, Rourkela Plant v. Kanchanbala (1994)
• In this case, Mohanty, an employee, had an accident while
going to his house which resulted in his death due to
construction work in the route. The actual residence was
very far away from the area where the accident took place
and the court observed that – “Doctrine of the notional
extension will apply when a person going to or coming from
his residence to the place of work. In this case, the
employee adopted a route which was not normal and thus
was not compensated.”
2) Savitri Devi v. Bharti Filling Station and
another( Decided on 28 July 2015, HP HC)
• In this case, the claimant’s son, Sanjeev Kumar was working as a driver with
the defendant (tanker’s owner) and had died while he was on his duty. The
claim for compensation was denied by the defendant on the ground that
there was no such connection between the death and the work of the
deceased.
• Later, the Commissioner dismissed this petition filed for the purpose of
compensation. Further, the High Court held that the commissioner
wrongfully concluded that there was no connection between work and
death of the deceased as the very fact that the deceased was working as a
driver and that too of an oil tanker, his job was full of stress and strain.
• The HC held that if the deceased was not present at the time of his
employment hours in the oil tanker for the employment purpose it would
not have resulted in his death as he would not have sustained such stress
and strain during his employment hours therefore such compensation is
the liability of the employer which is to be paid to the family of the
deceased.
3) State of Rajasthan v. Ram Prasad and Anr.
(2001) I LLJ 177(SC)
• A claim was made under the Workmen's Compensation Act,
1923 for compensation in respect of death of Smt. Gita who
died on account of an accident that took place while she was
engaged in doing work for the appellant.
• The accident, it is stated, took place on account of lightning.
The contention put forth on behalf of the appellant is that the
mishap of death of Gita due to lightning is act of God and,
therefore, not liable to pay compensation. This contention has
been rejected not only by the Commissioner for Workmen's'
Compensation but also by the learned single Judge in appeal
and thereafter by a Division Bench in a further appeal.
• The SC held that the concept of the liability under the Act is
wide enough to cover a case of this nature in as much as
death had taken place arising as a result of accident in the
course of employment. It is no doubt true that accident must
have a causal connection with the employment and arise out
of it.
• If the workman is injured as a result of natural force such as
lightning though in itself has no connection with employment
she can recover compensation by showing such employment
exposed her to such injury. In this case the finding is that the
said Smt. Gita was working on the site and would not have
been exposed to such hazard of lightning striking her had she
not been working .
 Whether Contractor is a Workman?

• Where a person entered into a construction contract

and agreed to work himself and also to employ his
own labour, while construction material was to be
supplied by the owner, and the contractor died while
working himself, it was held that the dependents of
the deceased were entitled to compensation.
 Payment of Compensation to Contract
Labour
• The principal employer is liable to pay compensation
to contract labour in the same manner as his
departmental labour. He is entitled to be
indemnified by the contractor. The principal
employer shall not however be liable to pay any
interest and penalty leviable under the Act.
 For holding the Principal employer liable to pay compensation to
any injured employee employed by the contractor, the following
conditions must be fulfilled:

1) A Contract b/w the principal employer and the Contractor who

procures, the services of the employee for the principal, entered
into the course of, or for the purposes of his trade or business.
2) The employee must have been engaged by the contractor for
doing any work which ordinarily part of the trade or business of
the employer,
3) The amount of compensation shall be calculated with reference
to the wages of the employee under the employer by whom he
is immediately employed,
4) In view of Sec. 12(4) the accident must not have occurred
elsewhere than on, or about the premises on which the principal
has undertaken, or usually undertakes to execute the work, or
which are otherwise under his control or management.
 1) Varadarajulu v. Masaya Boyan, (1954) IILLJ 426 Mad)
• In this case, the employer was a contractor for the formation of a road and
the deceased was a coolie mistry under him. The employee suffered injury
by capsizing of the lorry which belonged to the contractor and was driven
by his driver when the lorry was conveying the employees to the place of
work. It was held that:

• “Where the kind of transport provided by the employer was the only means
available to employees, the accident was held to be in the course of
employment because not only the lorry provided by the employer was
merely a reasonable means of transport but also that there was no other
means of transport to and from the workplace being a hilly tract.”

• Accidents resulting from the surroundings where an employee is employed

or through which he has to reach his place of work to carry out such work
may fall within the scope of the phrase, “arising out of and in the course of
the employment.”
 Employer’s Liability in Case of Occupational
Diseases
• Workers employed in certain types of
occupations are exposed to the risk of
contracting certain diseases which are
peculiar and inherent to those occupations.
• A worker contracting an occupational disease
is deemed to have suffered an accident out of
and in the course of employment and the
employer is liable to pay compensation for the
same.
 Occupational Diseases
Occupational diseases have been categorized in
Parts A, B and C of Schedule III. The employer is
liable to pay compensation:
• When a workman contracts any disease specified in
Part B, while in service for a continuous period of 6
months under one employer. (Period of service
under any other employer in the same kind of
employment shall not be included).
 Occupational Diseases
• When a workman contracts any disease specified in Part C,
while he has been in continuous service for a specified period,
whether under one or more employers. (Proportionate
compensation is payable by all the employers, if the workman
had been in service under more than one employer).

• If an employee has after the cessation of that service

contracted any disease specified in Part B or Part C, 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 the Act.
 Accident Report
• Where the accident results in death or serious
bodily injury, the employer should send a
report to the Commissioner, within 7 days of
the accident, in the prescribed form giving the
circumstances attending the death or serious
bodily injury.
 Notice of Accident (Sec.10)
• A 'notice of accident' should be sent to the
Commissioner, by the concerned employee as soon
as practicable after the happening thereof. The notice
should contain such particulars as the name and
address of the person injured, the date and cause of
accident, etc.
• A Copy of the notice should also be sent to the
establishment wherein he was employed. The notice
of accident may be served either personally or by
registered post or by means of an entry in the
notice-book maintained by the employer.
 Medical Examination(Sec.11)
• The employer may get the concerned workman
examined by a qualified medical practitioner, within
3 days from receiving the notice of accident. The
employee must present himself for such examination
otherwise he shall loose his right to the
compensation.
• Failure of employer to have the workman medically
examined does not debar him from challenging the
medical certificate produced by the workman.
 Statement of Fatal Accidents

• Where a commissioner receives information

from any source that a workman has died as a
result of an accident arising out of and in the
course of his employment, he may require the
employer, by serving upon him a registered
notice, to submit within 30 days of its service,
a statement in the prescribed form ;
• (a) Giving the circumstances attending the
death of the workman, and
• (b) Indicating whether he is or, is not, liable to
pay accident compensation.
• If the employer feels that he is liable to pay
compensation, he shall make the deposit
within 30 days of the service of the notice. If
the employer disclaims his liability, he should
indicate the grounds for such disclaimer.
 State of Rajasthan v. Ram Prasad and Anr.
(2001) I LLJ 177 (SC)
• In this case the employee Gita died due to natural lightning at the
site. The Supreme Court held that the accident must have causal
connection with the employment and arise out of it but in the
present case since the employee is injured as a result of natural
force of lightning which has no connection with the employment
of the deceased, the employer can be still held liable if the
claimant shows that the employment exposed the deceased to
such injury.
• In the present case the deceased was working on site and would
not have been exposed to such hazard of lightning had she not
been working so. Therefore, the appellant was held liable to pay
compensation.
 Amount of Compensation{Sec.4}
• The amount of compensation payable to a workman
depends on -
• -the nature of injury caused by accident,
• -the monthly wages of the workman concerned and
the relevant factor,
• -the Relevant Factor is specified in schedule IV for
working out the lump sum amount of compensation,
• There is no distinction between an adult and a minor worker with respect
to the amount of compensation.
 Compensation for Death
• In case of death resulting from injury, the amount of
compensation shall be equal to 50% of the monthly
wages of the deceased workman multiplied by
the relevant factor.
• Or an amount of Rs 80,000/- (from 2020 onwards
1,20,000) whichever is more.
 Example:
• A workman is employed in a factory on a monthly wage of Rs
3000. While working he met with an accident and dies on
October 2000. His date of birth is July 18 , 1970. The amount
of compensation payable to his dependent would be -
50* monthly wages* Relevant factor of age 30 -
100
or 80,000 whichever is higher((from 3rd January, 2020 on
wards 1,20,000) whichever is more/higher)

50* 3000* 207.98 = 3,11,970

100
Since Rs 3,11,970 is more than 1,20,000, the compensation
payable to him shall be Rs 3,11,970.
 Compensation for Permanent Total
Disablement

• In case of permanent total disablement resulting

from the injury, the amount of compensation shall
be 60% of the monthly wages of the injured
workman multiplied by the relevant factor or Rs
90,000/- thousand(from 3rd January, 2020 on wards
1,40,000) whichever is more.
 Compensation for Permanent Partial
Disablement
Where permanent partial disablement occurs, the
amount of compensation payable shall be as follows:
a) in case of an injury specified in part II of the schedule I,
the amount of compensation shall be such percentage
of the compensation which would have been payable
for the percentage of loss of earning capacity caused by
that injury.

b) in case of an injury not specified in schedule I, such

percentage of the compensation is payable which is
proportionate to the loss of earning capacity (as
assessed by a qualified medical practitioner)
permanently caused by the injury.
 Compensation for Temporary Disablement
(Total or Partial)
• If the temporary disablement, whether total or partial results
from the injury, the amount of compensation shall be a half
monthly payment of the sum equivalent to 25% of the
monthly wages of the workman to be paid in accordance with
the provisions.
• The half monthly payment shall be payable on the sixteenth
day from the date of disablement.
• In cases where such disablement lasts for a period of 28 days
or more compensation is payable from the date of
disablement.
• In other cases after the expiry of a waiting period of three
days from the date of disablement.
 Compensation to be Paid when due and
Penalty for Default (Section 4A)
• As per this section, compensation has to paid as soon as it is
due -
• In case the employer does not accept the liability of paying
the compensation, he is bound to make provisional payment
to the extent of the liability he accepts. Such amount has to
be deposited with the commissioner or paid to the workman.
If he defaults, the commissioner may order:
• the payment of the amount with interest at 12 % per year,

❖ if the default to be unjustifiable then the Commissioner may

order payment of a further sum not exceeding 50% of the
amount due, by way of penalty.
• Mr. Raja was working as a cleaner cum coolie for about five
years under the Rani. On 08.01.2021, at about 11.00 hours,
when the deceased Raja was working as a cleaner cum coolie
in the mini lorry bearing Registration No. KA 37 M 9689, met
with an accident and the Raja sustained grievous injury and
died on 12.01.2021.
• The claim application was filed by the married daughter of the
deceased and four major sons before the Commissioner
under the Employees’ Compensation Act, 1923. What is the
extent of compensation be awarded to the claimants under
the Employees’ Compensation Act, 1923?

• It can be established by producing the documents -

employer-employee relationship.

• Married daughter and four major sons are not dependents

under the Section 2(1)(d) of the Employees’ Compensation
Act, 1923.
 Child in mother’s womb
• Claim application by a person who is in womb of his
mother at the time of death of his father is maintainable
in view of the provisions contained in S.20 of Hindu
Succession Act.
• Claimant’s father died leaving behind widow who was
dependent at the time of his death within the meaning of
Section 2(d) of the Employees’ Compensation Act, 1923.
The claimant who was in his mother’s womb was also
dependent and took birth within few months thereafter.
The widow did not maintain a claim for compensation
rather went for a second marriage and started living with
her second husband. In such circumstances, the claimant
will not even be entitled to the benefit of Sections 6, 7
and 8 of the Limitation Act, 1963.
• Section 7 of the Limitation Act, 1963 deals with the
case where one of several persons jointly entitled to
maintain the claim under disability and discharge can
be given after concurrence of such person, time will
run against them all; but where no such discharge
can be given, time will not run as against any of them
until one of them becomes capable of giving such
discharge without the concurrence of the others or
until disability has ceased.
 Compensation Claim-after remarriage by the
widow of the deceased
• The widow would become 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 dependant.
• Under Sec. 21 of the Hindu Adoptions and Maintenance Act,
1956, a widow remains a dependant, within the meaning of
that section so long as she is not remarried. But the definition
of the ‘dependant’ under the Act is not so restricted and the
fact that she has remarried will not disentitle her to claim
compensation under the Employees’ Compensation Act,
1923.
 “Arising out of and in the course of
employment”- Sec.3(1)
• The expression “arising out of” suggests the cause of
accident and the expression “in the course of” refers to
the period of employment and the place of work.
• The application of this term is not confined to the mere
nature of employment rather applies to its incident,
condition, nature, obligation. Contemplating the above
factors, if the workman is within the zone of danger the
injury would be said to arise out of employment to which
the claim must succeed unless the workman by his own
prudent act was exposed to an added peril.
• It is a well settled law the term ‘duty’ is not confined to
the period of time the workman commences his work
and downs his tools.
 The essential principles to determine the injury inter
alia to be an accident are:
a) There must be a causal nexus between the accident,
injury and the work done in the course of employment.
b) The onus lies on the employee to prove that the work
he was engaged is resulted in the strain which
aggravated the injury.
c) The evidence brought on record cannot be a subject
matter of conjecture or surmise.
• Therefore, death may result from an accident but the
occurrence of the accident must be proved. Just because
death took place in the course of employment would not
amount to the accident as there is no assumption that an
accident occurred. Thus, the term ‘accident’ is an
untoward mishap that is unexpected or undersigned.
 1) Daya Kishan Joshi and another v. Dynemech Systems
Private Ltd.(2018) 11 SCC 642)
• In this case, records reveal that the deceased workman Mr. Ravi Shekhar
Joshi, son of the appellant, was employed with respondent (Dynemech
Systems Pvt. Ltd.) as an engineer. He was entrusted with the duty to be
in the field for promoting the sales/installation of the products of the
respondent. On the unfortunate day of the accident, i.e., 08.09.2007, the
deceased and his co-worker Mr. Vikas (who was also employed as an
engineer/sales executive) were deputed to test a filter which was
installed on 07.09.2007 at Hero Honda Factory, Dharu Heda, Haryana.
• Accordingly, both of them went from Delhi and checked the filter
installed at Hero Honda Factory, Dharu Heda, Haryana in the afternoon
and thereafter started the return journey to Delhi at 4:30 PM. Both the
workers including the deceased met with road accident while they were
little away from Hero Honda Factory and sustained injuries. Both were
taken to the hospital wherein the deceased was declared “brought dead”
while his co-worker was discharged after being given first-aid.
 • The appellants filed an application for compensation
under Sec. 22 of the Act before the Labour Commissioner.
Based on the pleadings, the Labour Commissioner framed the
following issues:

1) Whether the accident of the deceased occurred during the

course of and out of employment?
2) Whether the deceased falls under the definition of workman
under Employees Compensation Act, 1923? If so, whether the
claimant is entitled for compensation as per claim
application?
• The SC held that it is clear that the presence of the
deceased on the road in question was incidental to
his employment as a sales engineer. As he had to go
to the Hero Honda Factory to conduct a filter test, he
was merely doing what was required of him as an
employee. Thus, his accidental death on the way
back after completing his work falls squarely
within Section 3(1) of the Act.
• Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the
case on hand, it needs to be concluded that the
accident arose out of employment in as much as the
very nature of the employment of the deceased
made it necessary for him to be there.
 2) Poonam Devi v. Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd.
((2020) 4 SCC 55))
• The appellants are the legal heirs of the deceased. They were
granted compensation of Rs.4,45,420/ with interest at the rate
of 12 per cent by the Commissioner, under
Workmen’s Compensation Act, from the date of accident up to
the date of deposit in addition to a penalty imposed on the
employer under Section 4A(3)(b) of the
Employees Compensation Act, 1923.

• The deceased was aged 21 years, in the employment of

respondent no.2 and was driving her TATA 407 vehicle bearing
registration No. UP 15P 1689 on 11.06.2003 from Ambala to
Meerut, a distance of approximately 200 Kms. At about 12.30
PM, when he approached the bridge near village Fatehpur, the
deceased went to the Yamuna canal to fetch water and also to
have a bath. Unfortunately, he slipped into the canal and
died.
• The vehicle was insured with the respondent Insurance Company.
P.W.2, who was standing near the bridge, deposed that the
deceased had gone to fetch water into a canal along with the
cleaner who tried to save him, but both slipped into the canal. The
Workmen’s Compensation Commissioner by order dated
12.12.2005 allowed the claim as aforesaid.
• The High Court in appeal by the Insurance Company held that the
deceased may have died during the course of the employment
but death did not arise out of the employment, as bathing in the
canal was not incidental to the employment but was at the peril
of the workman.
• There was no casual connection between the death of the
workman and his employment. He had gone to fetch water for
personal consumption and it was not his case that the truck was
over heated.
• The SC set aside the order of HC. The order of the Workmen’s
Compensation Commissioner dated 12.12.2005 was restored.
 3) Leela Bai and another v. Seema Chouhan and
another ((2019) 4 SCC 324)

• The appellants are the legal heirs of the deceased

aggrieved by the rejection of their claim for
compensation under the Employees Compensation Act,
1923 as amended by the Employees Compensation
(Amendment) Act, 2009. The deceased was a bus driver
under respondent no.1. He fell off the roof of the bus
accidentally and died.
• The deceased, aged around 42 years, was the driver
of the public bus belonging to respondent no.1. He
met with an accidental death on 18.07.2010 at the
Burhanpur bus stand while coming down the roof of
the bus of which he was a driver, after eating his
meal. The salary of the deceased at the time of
death was determined by the Tribunal at Rs.4,275/
per month while dismissing the claim case.
• The SC ordered to pay compensation. The
compensation payable to the appellants shall be
calculated on the aforesaid basis under Sec. 4 along
with default penalty under Sec. 4A and costs to be
awarded under Sec. 26 of the Act.
 4) M/S. Star Press v. Meena Devi
(12 April, 2017 Del HC)
• In this case an employee returned back home after completing his
duty. At about 8:30 p.m., he was called back to the factory for
some urgent work, whereupon he went back to the factory, and
then he was murdered by a co-worker who was then convicted by
the Sessions Court.
• The appellant urged at the time of the hearing that the murder
cannot be said to be an accident for compensation under the
Employee's Compensation Act. It was further submitted that the
murder did not arise ‘out of’ and ‘in the course of employment’ of
the deceased. However, it was not disputed that the deceased
was an employee and was called after duty hours to do some
emergent work in the appellant's factory where he was murdered.
• The Supreme Court laid down the test that if the dominant
intention of the felonious act is to kill any particular person,
then such killing is not accidental murder but a murder
simpliciter. The courts noted the fine distinction between a
"murder" which is not an accident and a "murder" which is an
accident as noted by the Supreme Court in the case of Rita
Devi v New India Insurance. The SC noted that-
• The difference between a "murder" which is not an accident
and a "murder" which is an accident, depends on the
proximity of the cause of such murder. In our opinion, if the
dominant intention of the Act of felony is to kill any particular
person then such killing is not an accidental murder but is a
murder simpliciter, while if the cause of murder or act of
murder was originally not intended and the same was caused
in furtherance of any other felonious act then such murder is
an accidental murder."
• The Delhi HC, after examining the entire jurisprudence on this issue, came to the
conclusion that in this case, the compensation was to be paid to the employee
under the Employee Compensation Act. They noted that The Employees'
Compensation Act is a social beneficial legislation and has to be liberally
construed. They said that-
• “The injury caused by the act of another human being that result in fatal injuries
tantamount to murder qua the assailant and an accidental act qua the employee.
A casual connection is necessary between the accident and the employment to
hold that the accident arose out of employment. When the incident of murder
takes place in the work place, then the presumption would be that the murder
would have been on account of the employment; in the absence of any other
evidence pointing out that it could not have been on account of employment.
• If it is proved that the employee in the course of his employment has to be in a
particular place, and by reason of his being in that particular place, he has to
face a peril and the accident is caused by reason of that peril which he has to
face, then a causal connection is established between the incident and the
employment.”
• The reasoning here appears to be fairly sound, it clearly reflects the court’s
intention to do social justice. Therefore, what might appear to a far stretch of
imagination at the outset, has been brought about in the law by way of ‘fancy’
reasoning.
 5) N. A. Chauhan v. N.K. Shah
1991(Guj. HC)

• The employer was running a textile unit, at Bhavnagar. The

workman was doing miscellaneous work in the said textile
unit of the employer. On the day of the incident, as per the
case of the workman, when he was on duty, under the
instruction of his master, he had proceeded to mount belt
on a water-pump (boring) and while doing so another
employee in the factory, all of a sudden switched on the
motor. Consequently, the motor started and when the
workman was mounting the belt, his left hand was injured
and his index finger was caught and got entangled in the
pully and it was crushed.
• The present appellant is the original claimant who
preferred an application for compensation for personal
injuries sustained by him, under Sec. 3 of the Act. The
claimant made the application for compensation of Rs.
3528/-under Sec. 3 of the Act and Rs. 1746/-by way of
penalty under Sec. 4-A(3) of the Act with interest and
cost against the present respondent employer.

• The HC held that the employer shall pay a sum of Rs.

2,772/-by way of compensation to the workman with
running interest at the rate of 6 per cent per annum
from the date of accident, i.e. 3.12.1981 till realisation.
The employer shall also be liable to pay and the
workman will be entitled to recover a sum of Rs.
1386/-by way of penalty.
6) G.S.R.T.C. v. Ashok Kumar keshavlal Parekh, 1999
(Guj, HC) (Apprentice)

• The Divisional Controller, Gujarat State Road Transport

Corporation, Mahesana Division, Mahesana, by this appeal under
the Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923 challenges the award of
the Commissioner under Workmen's Compensation Act at Kalol
made in Workmen's Compensation Application No. 92 of 1993 on
June 1, 1996.
• This award has been challenged by the appellant before HC on the
ground that the claimant-respondent since deceased was only an
Apprentice appointed under the provisions of Apprentices Act,
1961 and there exists no relationship of employer and employee
between the Corporation and the claimant, the Commissioner
under the Workmen's Compensation Act has exceeded its
jurisdiction in passing the award in his favour.
• The second contention is that the Commissioner under the
Workmen's Compensation Act has committed serious error or
illegality in determining the amount of compensation payable to
the claimant by taking his monthly wages to be of Rs. 924. This
calculation could have been made only on the basis of taking the
amount of Rs. 380/- p.m. as his wages which the appellant was
paying as stipend to the claimant.
• Lastly, it is contended that the accident has resulted because of
negligence of the claimant himself and he was not entitled to any
compensation under the provisions of Workmen's Compensation
Act, 1923.
• The HC held that, Sec. 16 of Apprentices Act, 1961 entitles a
apprentice to claim compensation under this Act if personal injury
caused to him by accident arising out of or in the course of his
training as an apprentice.
 Mode of Payment
• The employer becomes liable to pay the compensation as soon as
the personal injury was caused to the workman by the accident
which arose out of and in the course of the employment.

• The amount of compensation should be paid as soon as it falls due.

It will be computed on the date of accident. If the amount is not
paid within one month from the date it fell due, the Commissioner
may after giving reasonable opportunity of being heard, direct the
employer to pay simple interest @ 12% p.a. or at such higher rate
as may be specified not exceeding the maximum lending rate of any
scheduled bank.
• Besides, if there is no justification for the delay, the Commissioner
may after giving reasonable opportunity of being heard, direct the
employer to pay a further sum not exceeding 50% of the
compensation, by way of penalty. The amount of penalty and also
interest shall be paid to the workman or his dependent as the case
may be.
• The half-monthly installments of compensation
(payable in case of temporary disablement) should
be paid within the time specified. The half-monthly
installments can be converted into a lump sum
payment, by an agreement between the employer
and the employee or by applying to the
Commissioner.
Compensation to be deposited with Commissioner
• The amount of compensation is not payable to the
workman directly. It is generally deposited along with the
prescribed statement, with the Commissioner who will
then pay it to the workman. Any payment made to the
workman or his dependents, directly, in the following
cases it will not be deemed to be a payment of
compensation :
(i) in case of death of the employee;
(ii) in case of sump sum compensation payable to a woman
or a minor or a person of unsound mind or whose
entitlement to the compensation is in dispute or a person
under a legal disability.
• Besides, compensation of Rs. 10 or more may be
deposited with the Commissioner on behalf of the person
entitled thereto.
• The receipt of deposit with the Commissioner shall be a
sufficient proof of discharge of the employer's liability.
Amount Permissible to be Paid Directly to The
Workman/Dependant

Following amounts may be paid directly to the

workman or his dependents:
• In case of death of the workman, any advance on
account of compensation upto an amount equal to three
months wages of such workman, may be paid to any
dependant.
• In case of lump sum compensation payable to an adult
male worker not suffering from any legal disability.
• In case of half-monthly payments payable to any
workman.
• Employer is exonerated from his liability if he
deposits the compensation amount with the
commissioner within the stipulated time.
• The commissioner shall call all dependants of
the deceased and determine the method for
distribution of compensation among them.
• If no dependants are found then amount shall
be refunded to the employer.
• On request by the employer the commissioner
shall furnish the details of disbursement.
 Funeral Expenses
• In case of death of a workman funeral
expenses amount of Rs. 2500/- shall be
payable to the dependent of the deceased
workman or to anyone who incurs the
expenses of the funeral.
 Administrative Authority
Jurisdiction of Commissioner - Any matter under
this Act, to be done by or before a Commissioner,
shall be done by or before the Commissioner for the
area in which -
(a) the accident resulting in the injury, took place or
(b) the workman, or his dependent, claiming the
compensation ordinarily resides, or
(c) the employer has his registered office.
• Where a Commissioner is satisfied that any
proceedings can be more conveniently disposed of
by any other Commissioner, he may transfer the
matter to such other Commissioner.
 Monthly Wages {Sec.4(A)
• One-twelfth of the total wages fallen due for payment by the
employer during the last twelve months of that period.
• Where the whole of the continuous period immediately preceding
the accident was less than one month, the average monthly
amount earned by a workman employed in the same work by the
same employer or if no such workman is employed, by a workman
employed in a similar work in the same locality.
• In any other case, thirty times the total wages earned in the last
continuous period of service divided by the no. of days comprising
such period.
• Where the monthly wages of a workman exceeds 4000/-, his
monthly wages will be deemed to be 4000/- only.
 Contracting Out (Sec.17)
• Any contract or agreement which makes the
workman give up or reduce his right to
compensation from the employer is null and void
insofar as it aims at reducing or removing the liability
of the employer to pay compensation under the Act.
Registration of Agreements (Sec. 28)
• Where the amount payable as compensation has been settled by
agreement a memorandum thereof shall be sent by the employer to
the Commissioner, who shall, on being satisfied about its
genuineness, record the memorandum in a registered manner.
• However where it appears to the Commissioner that the agreement
ought not to be registered by reason of the inadequacy of the sum or
amount, or by reason that the agreement has been obtained by fraud
or undue influence or other improper means he may refuse to record
the agreement and may make such order including an order as to
any sum already paid under the agreement as he thinks just in the
circumstances.
• An agreement for payment of compensation which has been
registered shall be enforceable under this Act notwithstanding
anything contained in the Indian Contract Act, or any other law for
the time being in force.
 Failure to Register Agreement(Sec.29)

• When a memorandum of any agreement is not sent

to the Commissioner for registration, the employer
shall be liable to pay the full amount of
compensation, which he is liable to pay under the
provisions of this Act.
 Filing of Claims
No claim for compensation shall be entertained by the Commissioner
unless the notice of accident has been given by the workman in the
prescribed manner, except in the following circumstances:

a) in case of death of workman resulting from an accident which

occurred on the premises of the employer, or at any place where the
workman at the time of the accident was working died on such
premises or such place or in the vicinity of such premises or place;
b) in case the employer has knowledge of the accident from any other
source, at or about the time of its occurrence;
c) in case the failure to give notice or prefer the claim, was due to
sufficient cause.
 Limitation
Workman, to the Commissioner, may file the claim
for accident compensation in the prescribed form,
within 2 years from the occurrence of the accident or
from the date of death. The claim must be preceded
by -
i. a notice of accident, and
ii. the claimant-employee must present himself for
medical examination if so required by the
employer.
 Duties of Employer
Pay compensation for an accident suffered by an
employee, in accordance with the Act.
1) To submit a statement to the Commissioner (within 30
days of receiving the notice) in the prescribed form,
giving the circumstances attending the death of a
workman as result of an accident and indicating
whether he is liable to deposit any compensation for
the same.
2) To submit accident report to the Commissioner in the
prescribed form within 7 days of the accident, which
results in death of a workman or a serious bodily injury
to a workman.
3) To maintain a notice book in the prescribed from at
a place where it is readily accessible to the
workman.

4) To submit an annual return of accidents specifying

the number of injuries for which compensation has
been paid during the year, the amount of such
compensation and other prescribed particulars.
 Duties of Employee
1) To send a notice of the accident in the prescribed
form, to the Commissioner and the employer,
within such time as soon as it is practicable for him.
The notice is precondition for the admission of the
claim for compensation.
2) To present himself for medical examination, if
required by the employer.
 The Doctrine of Added Peril
Meaning:
• The term “added peril” means the workmen who have done
an act that is not a contract of service and such an act results
in danger to the workmen. If the workmen on the course of
his employment while performing his duty does an act which
is not required to do and involved excess danger a result if
any damage caused to him, the employer shall not be liable
to pay compensation.
• The doctrine of added peril is a defence to the employer.
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.
Doctrine of Added Peril and Liability of Employer
• Mr. Y was employed in laboratory department of mining
industry. After his lunch, he had time of 30 minutes to restart
his work. He went for walk inside the tunnel which doesn’t
have any space except for wagon which carries the load. He
met with an accident when the wagon arrived in that tunnel.
• The accident happened during his course of employment.
1) Lancashire and Yorkshire Railway Co. v. Highley
(1917) A.C. 352)
• In this case, an employee appointed a railway company while
going to the mess-room took the path through metal lines
being well aware of the goods train standing by side. Suddenly
the train started and employee was killed.
• On observing, it was held that the accident that took place,
arose out of the employee’s negligence and risk taken by him,
it was not out of the employment of employee. As a result of
this observance court laid down the doctrine of added peril as
an imperative of injury arising out of employment.
 2) Devidayal Ralyaram v. Secretary of State
(AIR 1937 Sind 288)
• In this case an employee appointed at a job of fitter went under
the operating machine to collect scrap in order to make out some
nuts and studs out of it. The machine when set in motion caused
permanent injury to the employ. On analysing the case it was
drawn that fitter was prohibited from doing so and it was not part
of his duty to go under the machine and search for scrap.
• Hence all the damage or injuries caused to fitter were due to his
voluntary actions and there was no duty imposed on him to do so.
Further court held that employer can use doctrine of added peril
as defence for pleading non- liability in case of compensation.
 Penalties (Sec.18-A)
• (1) Whoever -
(a) fails to maintain a notice-book which he is required to maintain
under sub-section (3) of section 10, or
(b) fails to send to the Commissioner a statement which he is required
to send under sub-section (1) of section 10A, or
(c) fails to send a report which he is required to send under section
10B, or
(d) fails to make a return which he is required to make under section
16, or
(e) fails to inform the employee of its rights to compensation as
required under section 17A. shall be punishable with fine which
shall not be less than Rs.50,000/- but it may extend to one lakh
rupees.
(2) No prosecution under this section shall be instituted except by or
with the previous sanction of a Commissioner, and no Court shall take
cognizance of any offence under this section, unless complaint thereof
is made within six months of the date on which the alleged commission
of the offence came to the knowledge of the Commissioner.
 Amendments(2009, 2017 &2020)
• The Act is now known as ‘Employee’s Compensation Act.
• Throughout the Act where ‘workman’ or ‘workmen’ occur,
the words ’employee’ and ‘employees’ shall be
substituted.
• Clerical employees are included in the definition of
‘employee’.
• Compensation for death raised from 80,000 to 1,20,000.
• Compensation for permanent total disablement raised
from 90,000 to 1,40,000.
 Amendments

• The employee shall be reimbursed the actual

medical expenditure incurred by him for
treatment of injuries caused during the course of
employment”.
• Funeral expenses amount is increased from
Rs.2500 to “not less than Rs.5000”.
• It reserves the right for Central Government to
enhance the amount of compensation.
 Amendments

Explanation II:
• Where the monthly wages of a workman exceed
four thousand rupees, his monthly wages for the
purposes of clause (a) and clause (b) shall be
deemed to be four thousand rupees only:”
Now the above explanation has been revised as:
• Where the monthly wages of a workman exceed
Eight thousand rupees, his monthly wages for the
purposes of clause (a) and clause (b) shall be
deemed to be Eight thousand rupees only;”
 Limitation on Maximum Compensation

• The maximum compensation payable is upon the

following scale (as per E.C. Amendment Act 2000)
Fatal Injury - Rs.4,57,080.
• Permanent Total Disablement - Rs.5,48,496.
• Permanent Partial Disablement - According to
incapacity caused.
• Temporary Disablement - Rs. 2000 per month upto a
period of 5 years.