Mukund Industries, manufacturing auto parts was formed in the year 2021. Its workforce strength stood at 324. It had provided fencing at all places where machines were installed for safety reasons. It so happened that on

Section 21(1)(iv)(c) of the Factories Act, 1948, provides that every dangerous part of any other machinery, shall be securely fenced by safeguards of substantial construction which shall be constantly maintained and kept in position while the parts of machinery they are fencing are in motion or in use. In the case of State of Gujarat vs Jethela Chelabhai Patel 1964-LU-389 the Supreme Court held that: (i) The mere fact that someone else had removed the safeguard without the knowledge, consent or connivance of the occupier or manager does not provide a defence to him. When the statute says that it will be his duty to keep a guard in position while the machine is working and when it appears that he has not done so, it will be for him to establish that notwithstanding this he was not liable. (ii) Even where the occupier or manager could establish that somebody else had removed the fence, he has further to prove that he exercised due diligence to see that the fence, which under the Act was his duty to see was kept in position all along, had not been removed. Employer will not be liable if he fulfils both conditions as stated above. Section 3 of the Employee's Compensation Act, 1923 prescribes that 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. In the given situation, Mukund Industries have to pay compensation to the worker since accident occurred during the course of employment and arising out of employment causing the personal injury as per Section 3 of the Employee's Compensation Act, 1923.