State and Explain the concept of 'Injury arising out of and in the course of employment' as contemplated in the Employee's Compensation Act, 1923.
Find the question and answer of Labour Law only on Legal Bites.
Question: State and Explain the concept of 'Injury arising out of and in the course of employment' as contemplated in the Employee's Compensation Act, 1923.Find the question and answer of Labour Law only on Legal Bites. [State and Explain the concept of 'Injury arising out of and in the course of employment' as contemplated in the Employee's Compensation Act, 1923.]AnswerSection 3 of the Employee's Compensation Act, 1923 provides for the Liability of an employer Liability for Compensation...
Question: State and Explain the concept of 'Injury arising out of and in the course of employment' as contemplated in the Employee's Compensation Act, 1923.
Find the question and answer of Labour Law only on Legal Bites. [State and Explain the concept of 'Injury arising out of and in the course of employment' as contemplated in the Employee's Compensation Act, 1923.]
Answer
Section 3 of the Employee's Compensation Act, 1923 provides for the Liability of an employer Liability for Compensation as below:
“(1) If personal injury is caused to a employee by accident arising out of and in the course of his employment, his employer shall be liable to pay compensation in accordance with the provisions of this Chapter:Provided that the employer shall not be so liable --(a) in respect of any injury which does not result in the total or partial disablement of the employee for a period exceeding three days;(b) in respect of any injury, not resulting in death or permanent total disablement caused by an accident which is directly attributable to—(i) the employee having been at the time thereof under the influence of drink or drugs, or(ii) the wilful disobedience of the employee to an order expressly given, or to a rule expressly framed, for the purpose of securing the safety of employees, or(iii) the wilful removal or disregard by the employee of any safety guard or other device which he knew to have been provided for the purpose of securing the safety of employee…”
Section 3 of the Employee's Compensation Act, 1923 provides that compensation shall be payable to an employee who has suffered an injury arising out of and in the course of employment. The section further explains that the injury should have resulted in the employee's disablement or death.
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. Therefore, to claim compensation, it is essential to establish that the injury has occurred in the course of employment and has arisen out of it.
To prove that injury arose 'out of employment' two conditions must be fulfilled:
- The injury must have resulted from some risk incidental to the duties of the service and inherent in the natural condition of employment.
- 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.
The phrase "injury arising out of and in the course of employment" has been interpreted by the courts in numerous cases, and some of the key principles are:
- The injury must have been caused by an activity that is characteristic of or incidental to the work that the employee is engaged in.
- The injury must have occurred during the period of employment and at a place where the employee is expected to be during the course of employment.
- The injury must have a causal connection with the employment, and it should not have arisen from any independent or unrelated cause.
- The injury should not have been caused by the employee's willful disobedience of the employer's orders or the employee's misconduct.
In the case of State of Rajasthan v. Ram Prasad and Another, Civil Appeal No. 10678 of 1996, 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 the hazard of lightning had she not been working; therefore, the appellant was held liable to pay compensation.
The concept of "injury arising out of and in the course of employment" under Section 3 of the Employee's Compensation Act, 1923 requires establishing a direct causal connection between the injury and the employment. The courts have played a significant role in interpreting the provisions of the Act and defining the scope and limitations of the concept, as seen in the above case laws.