The problem is relating to compensation under section 3 of Workmen's Compensation Act. The sole point in the matter is whether the accident which occurred on 25th May, 2018, in the railway Yard at Lucknow and resulted in

CS Professional · Labour Laws & Practice · PYQS · December 2020
The problem is relating to compensation under section 3 of Workmen's Compensation Act. The sole point in the matter is whether the accident which occurred on 25th May, 2018, in the railway Yard at Lucknow and resulted in the loss of both legs of the respondent Mahabir, a machine man employed in the Carriage and Wagon Shops of East Indian Railway, Alambagh, Lucknow, arose 'out of and in the course of his employment' within the meaning of section 3 of the Act. As facts of case Mahabir lives in Village Mahmudpur which is close to Malhaur railway station on the East Indian Railway. He used to come free of cost to Lucknow junction every morning from Malhaur along with other employees in a workmen's special provided by the railway and proceed after crossing the lines to the Alambagh Workshop which is at a distance of about a mile from the junction across the railway yard. This was a some what shorter route and it was taken as a matter of routine for going to and coming from the works in preference to a sub-way and two other overbridge routes which were also available. When the workmen were on night shift, they were provided with special permits for travelling by ordinary passanger trains free of charge between Lucknow junction and Malhaur Station. Mahabir was on duty on the night between the 21st and 22nd May, 2018. He finished work at 5.30 a.m. and was returning as usual to the Lucknow junction station over the yard in order to catch the passanger train which left there at 8 a.m. for Malhaur. When he was within a short distance of the station platform, he crossed the line and in doing so he was run over by a shunting engine at about 6.30 a.m. As a result of the accident Mahabir's legs were crushed and they had to be ultimately amputated. Mahabir file a case against Works Manager, Carriage and Wagon Workshop for compensation under the Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923. As per section 3 of W.C. Act, 1923 "If personal injury is caused to a workman by accident arising out of and in the course of his employment, his employer shall be liable to pay compensation. The expression 'out of and in the course of his employment' occurring in the aforesaid section has been the subject of interpretation in numerous case and it has been found almost a hopeless task to give such a comprehensive or exhaustive meaning as may be applicable to all cases. In cases, therefore, which arise in consequence of an injury caused to an employee while he is actually engaged in the work for the doing of which he is employed, it is hardly controversial on the ground of interpretation that this matter come under the section of Workman Compensation Act, 1923. The word 'employment', however has been given a wider meaning than the word 'work' and it has been universally accepted that a man may be in the course of employment without being actually engaged on work for the doing of which he is engaged. From what has been said above, it would appear to be a legitimate corollary that what may be called environmental accidents, that is accidents resulting from the surroundings in which the workman is employed or through which he has to reach his place of work in order to carry out his obligations to his employer, may fall within the scope of the phrase 'arising out of or in the course of his employment. On the basis of the above facts, answer the following: Discuss the concept of 'arising out of and in course of employment'.

Answer & Explanation:

The expression" arising out of suggests the cause of accident and the expression in the Course of" points out to the place and circumstances under which the accident takes place and the time when lit occurred. To make the employer liable, it is necessary that the injury is caused by an accident which must be raised but of and in the course of employment. The expression "arising out of employment" suggests some causal connection between the employment and the accidental injury. The cause contemplated is the proximate cause and not any remote cause. Thus, where a workman suffers from heart disease and dies on account of strain of work by keeping continuously standing or working, held that the accident arose out of employment (Laxmibai Atma Ram v. Bombay Port Trust, AIR 1954 Bom. 180). In the case of Mackenzie v. I.M. Issak, it was observed that the words "arising out of employment' are understood to mean that during the course of the employment, injury has resulted from some risk incidental to the duties of the service which unless engaged in the duty, owing to the master it is reasonable to believe the workman would not otherwise have suffered. There must be a causal relationship between the accident and employment. If the accident had occurred on account of a risk which is an incident of the employment, the claim for Compensation must succeed unless of course the workman has exposed himself to do an added peril by his own imprudence." In the course of employment means during the currency of employment. In order to succeed in his claim a workman has to prove that he was at the time of injury engaged in the employer's business or in furthering that business and was not doing something for his own benefit or accumulation, He must show that he was doing something in discharge of a duty to this employer directly or indirectly imposed upon him by his contract of service.

Topics: Employee's Compensation Act, 1923

Open in Interactive Practice Hub · Full Practice Hub · Chapter Weightage · More in this subject

Related Questions in this Topic