This article is about how much compensation is given under what conditions, who is liable to pay compensation and more. Every employer must safeguard his employee especially when employees face death or disability in the course of conducting their duty. the workmen's compensation act 1923 was formed to provide compensation to workers who faced accidental death or injuries in the course of employment liable to pay compensation.

The workmen's compensation act came into force on 1st July 1924. the workmen's compensation act is known as the employee compensation act. it was the first legislation on labour law. This act has a total of 36 sections and 4 schedules. section 3 is the most important section of the act and it has five sub-sections.

The workmen's compensation act, of 1923 was majorly formed to provide compensation to workmen at the time of an accident. this act mentions that it is the duty and responsibility of the employer to include the welfare of the workers when an injury is the result of the employment in the same way the employer has reserved the right of making profits.

Introduction:
The workmen's compensation act, of 1923 provided compensation by certain classes of employers to their workmen for injury by accident in their establishment. the term arising during the course and out of employment is prescribed under section 3 of the workmen's compensation act 1923.

If an employee was injured, or the injury resulted in death because of any employment in which he was engaged, he, or those representing him or dependent on him, could recover compensation for such injury or death, only when the same could be attributed to the negligence of the employer.

Hence, it was thought necessary that there should be legislation which would secure workmen and their dependents against becoming objects of charity by making provision for reasonable compensation for all such calamities as are incidental to the employment (1).

An employer includes any body of persons whether incorporated or not and any managing agent of an employer and the legal representative of a deceased employer, when the services of an employee are temporarily lent or let on hire to another person by the person with whom the employee has entered into a contract of service or apprenticeship, means such other person while the employee is working for him. An employer is liable to pay compensation to an employee for personal injury caused to him by accident as well as for any occupational disease contracted by him.

Object:
The act aims to provide workmen and their dependents some relief or compensation in case of accidents arising out of and in the course of employment and causing either death or disablement (partial or total) of workmen.

SEC 3: Employer's Liability for Compensation:

1. f 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 by the provisions of this chapter: provided that the employer shall not be so liable:
   
   1. In respect of any injury which does not result in the total or partial disablement of the workman for a period exceeding three days;
   2. In respect of any injury, not resulting in death, caused by an accident which is directly attributable to:
      
      1. The workman having been at the time thereof under the influence of drink or drugs, or
      2. the willful removal or disregard by the workman of any safety guard or other device which he knew to have been provided to secure the safety of workmen.
          
2. If a workman employed in any employment specified in Part A of schedule III contracts any disease specified therein as an occupational disease peculiar to that employment, or if a workman, whilst in the service of an employer in whose service he has been employed for a continuous period of not less than six months (which period shall not include a period of service under any other employer in the same kind of employment) in any employment specified in Part B of schedule III.
   
   Contracts any disease specified therein as an occupational disease peculiar to that employment, or if a workman whilst in the service of one or more employers in any employment specified in Part C of schedule III for such continuous period as the central government may specify in respect of each such employment, contracts any disease specified therein as an occupational disease peculiar to that employment, the contracting of the disease shall be deemed to be an injury by accident within the meaning of this section and, unless the contrary is proved, the accident shall be deemed to have arisen out of, and in the course of, the employment: provided that it is proved:
   
   1. That a workman whilst in the service of one or more employers in any employment specified in Part C of Schedule III has contracted a disease specified therein as an occupational disease peculiar to that employment during a continuous period which is less than the period specified under this sub-section for that employment, and
       
   2. That the disease has arisen out of and in the course of the employment; the contracting of such disease shall be deemed to be an injury by accident within the meaning of this section: provided further that if it is proved that a workman who has served under employer in any employment specified in part B schedule III or who had served under one or more employers in any employment specified in part C of that schedule, for a continuous period specified under this sub-section for that employment and he has after the cessation of such service contracted any disease specified in the said part B or that said part C, as the case may be, as an occupational disease peculiar to the employment and that such disease arose out of the employment, the contracting of the disease shall be deemed to be an injury by accident within the meaning of this section
      
      (2A) If a workman employed in any employment specified in part C of schedule III contracts any occupational disease peculiar to that employment, the contracting whereof is deemed to be an injury by accident within the meaning of this section, and such employment was under more than one employer, all such employers shall be liable for the payment of the compensation in such proportion as the commissioner may, in the circumstances, deem just.
       
3. The state government in the case of employments specified in part A and part B of schedule III, and the central government in the case of employments specified in part C of that schedule, after giving, by notification in the official gazette, not less than three months' notice of its intention so to do, may, by a like notification, add any description of employment to the employments specified in schedule III, and shall specify in the case of employments so added the diseases which shall be deemed for this section to be occupational diseases peculiar to those employments respectively, and thereupon the provisions of sub-section (2) shall apply as if such diseases had been declared by this act to be occupational diseases peculiar to those employments.
    
4. Save as provided by sub-sections (2),(2A) and (3), no compensation shall be payable to a workman in respect of any diseases directly attributable to a specific injury by accident arising out of and in the course of his employment.
    
5. Nothing herein contained shall be deemed to confer any right to compensation on a workman in respect of any injury if he has instituted in a civil court a suit for damages in respect of the injury against the employer or any other person, and no suit for damages shall be maintainable by a workman in any court of law in respect of any injury:
   
   1. If he has instituted a claim to compensation in respect of the injury before a commissioner; or
   2. If an agreement has been come to between the workman and his employer providing for the payment of compensation in respect of the injury by the provisions of the act. (2)

Personal Injury by Accident:

An employer is liable to pay compensation to an employee for personal injury caused to him by accident arising out of and in the course of his employment.

The following conditions must be fulfilled to make an employer liable to pay compensation to an employee:

1. Personal injury must have been caused to an employee.
2. Such injury must have been caused by an accident.
3. The accident must have arisen out of and in the course of employment.
4. The injury must have resulted either in the death of the employee or in his total or partial disablement for a period exceeding three days.

The employer is not liable to pay compensation in the following cases:

1. If the injury did not result in total or partial disablement of the employee for a period exceeding three days.
2. If any injury does not result in death or permanent total disablement, then the employer can plead:
   
   1. That the employee was at the time of the accident under the influence of drinks or drugs.
   2. That the employee wilfully disobeyed an order expressly given or a rule expressly framed to secure the safety of the employee and
   3. That the employee knowing that certain safety guards or safety devices were specifically provided to secure his safety, willfully disregarded or removed such safety guards or safety devices.

Personal injury:

The word 'injury' means damage caused to an employee by some accident (accident means an unforeseen event). The act provides compensation only for personal injury which includes both psychological and physiological injury.

Lakshmibai vs. Chairman, Port Trustees, Bombay, Bom LR 924:

An employee died due to heart disease while on duty. There was evidence to prove that the employee was suffering from heart disease and he died as a result of strain on his heart from the particular work he was doing. The court held that the death was due to personal injury and hence the legal heirs of the employee were entitled to claim compensation.

Intentional Injury:

The term 'personal injury' includes any injury which is not designed by the employee himself, but if the injury is designed by the employee himself, but if the injury is designed and intended by the person inflicting the same, then it is unintentional injury as far as the injured is concerned.

Varkey Achan vs Thomman Thomas, 1979

The court held that the term ' accident' under the employee's compensation act includes any intentional injury committed against the employee by other persons, the intention not being designed by the employee himself.

Accident:
The word 'accident' means some unlooked- mishap or an untoward event which is not expected or designed by the injured employee himself even though there may be negligence. Therefore, if an occurrence is unexpected and without any design on the part of the employee, it is an accident. The term accident includes collisions, falling over obstacles, falling from the roof, exposure to drought, chill or attack of others etc.

Nishet vs Rayna and Burn:

A cashier travelling on a train with a large sum of money for payment to his employer's employees was robbed and murdered. It was held that murder was an accident from the viewpoint of the cashier, as he would never have anticipated such dacoity and murder.

In the course of (Time & Place)
The phrase "in the course of employment" is wider and is said to require only a temporal (time) relationship with employment. the phrase is intended to cover injuries not directly caused by the nature of duties for which a worker is employed. when it happened at the time the worker was either by an accident in the workplace or doing some incidental tasks. (3) It suggests the duration of employment. The employee, at the time of the accident, must be in the process of doing something in the discharge of his duty. (4) The test to find out whether an employee is in the course of employment is that he was at the time of the accident engaged in the employer's business or in furthering his business and was not doing something for his own benefit/ welfare. (5)

Case Laws:

Trustees port of Bombay vs Yamunabai

A bomb placed in the premises of a workshop by some unknown person exploded and caused injury to a workman. It was held that the workman was not responsible for placing the bomb, and injury due to its explosion was caused at the time and place at which he was employed, therefore the injury was the result of an accident arising out of his employment.

The rule is that if a particular accident would not have happened to a workman had he not been employed to work in the particular place and condition, it would be an accident arising out of the employment. Likewise, where the workmen, working in some factories are injured due to crashing down within the factory premises of some aircraft, it will be an injury resulting from an accident arising out of the employment as the workmen are not responsible for the air crash and they are exposed to that danger because of their presence on the place of the accident because of their employment.

State of Rajasthan vs Ram Prasad and Another

The workman died due to natural lightning while working at the site, the supreme court held that so that a workman may succeed in his claim for compensation it is no doubt true that the accident must have a causal connection with the employment and arising out of it.

But if the workman is injured as a result of natural force lightening, though it in itself has no connection with the employment of deceased Smt. Geeta, the employer can still be held liable if the claimant shows that the employment exposed the deceased to such injury. In the present case the deceased was working on the site and would not have been exposed to such hazard of lightning had she not been working; therefore, the appellant was held liable to pay compensation.

Chairman Madras Port Trust, vs Smt. Kamala

It was held that fetching food is part of the employee's duty. Therefore, an accident to an employee while fetching food in the course of employment.

Imperial Tobacco Co. India Ltd vs Salona Bibi

A workman who suffered from high fever was recommended two days' leave by the doctor. When returned on the third day the doctor found him suffering from malaria and pneumonia. He was again granted three days' leave. After the expiry of three days when he came in a rickshaw to report to the doctor, his condition was so serious that he had to be taken upstairs to the dispensary on a stretcher.

The doctor found him in almost dying condition and therefore hastened to administer an injection but he died after a few minutes. It was held that as the stress and strain of the journey were responsible for causing or precipitating the workman's death, a tan accident arose out of and in the course of employment.

Arising out of:
The phrase "arising out of" is a causal connection between employment & injury by the accident. it is restrictive& something about employment must have caused the injury for example tasks, equipment, and surrounding they were given compensation. The employee should be doing something in the discharge of his duties to the employer either directly or indirectly.

The term 'employment' has a wider meaning than the term 'work'. It means that an employee is in the course of his employment when he is engaged in doing something in the discharge of his duties to his employer and also when he is engaged in an action arising out of it.

To prove that injury arose 'out of employment' two conditions must be fulfilled:

1.  Injury must have resulted from some risk incidental to the duties of the service and inherent in the natural condition of employment.
2. At the time of injury, the worker must have been engaged in the business of the employer and must not be doing something for his advantage or benefit.

Theory of Notional Extension:

This theory of Notional Extension was laid down by the supreme court in Sowrastra Salt Manufacturing Company vs Bai Velu Raju AIR 1958

According to this theory, under certain circumstances, an employer is liable for injuries to his employee, even when the employee is away from the premises at the accident.

1. Now, under the theory of Notional extension, the area which the employee passes and repasses in going to and leaving the actual place of work is included.
2. An employee may be regarded as in the course of his employment, even though he had not reached or had left the actual premises where he was employed.
3. A personal injury caused to the employee by accident in a public place becomes an accident in the course of his employment, only if his employee is then rendering service to his employer or is then discharging some obligation imposed upon him by the contract of employment.
4. Thus the theory of notional extension of the employer's premises does not extend to the whole of the journey between an employee's residence and the place of work, but only to places where the employee does the work of the employer.

National Iron & Steel Co vs Manorama Dass:

A boy was returning to the factory canteen after serving tea to certain persons in the factory. He was struck by a bullet and died. It was held that the accident was arising out of and in the course of his employment.

Works Manager Carriage and Wagon Shop vs Mababir:

A railway employee was ordered to travel to a station to repair a water main. After finishing the work, he died due to an accident. It was held that the death arose out of and in the course of employment.

Occupational diseases:

Usually, workers employed in certain occupations are exposed to certain diseases which are normal in those occupations. Contracting an occupational disease is deemed to be an injury by accident and is deemed to have arisen out of and in the course of employment. So, the employer is liable to pay compensation for such diseases which can be directly attributed to specific injuries by accident.

If the employer is also responsible for the death of an employee, then the death is deemed to have arisen out of employment.

Mackinam Mackenzie vs Rita Fernandes:

An employee while working in a shop died. He was a heart patient and died of cardiac failure. His wife claimed and got compensation. It was held it was an accident arising out of and in the course of employment.

Conclusion:
The workmen's compensation act, of 1923 was made to offer compensation to workers who have encountered injuries due to an accident during their employment. This act ensures that the rights of the labourers are maintained even after they encounter some disability or death in the course of employment. Therefore, employers are obligated to offer compensation to their workers who encountered injuries that have led to demise or disablement during employment.

References
Bibliography:

1. K.D.Srivastava: The Employee's Compensation Act, 1923
2. Madhavan Pillai: Labour and Industrial Law
3. V.G.Gowsami; Labour Law

Written By: K. Keerthana. B.A., L.L.B. Honors., L.L.M.