key features of the Workmen’s Compensation Act, 1923
Key Features of the Workmen’s Compensation Act, 1923
1. Purpose
The main aim is to provide monetary compensation to workmen or their dependents if they suffer injury, disablement, or death due to accidents arising out of and during the course of employment.
It is a social welfare measure to protect workers.
2. Scope
Applies to workers (workmen) employed in various industries, factories, mines, plantations, or hazardous occupations.
Covers injury caused by accident, which can be sudden or due to occupational disease related to employment.
3. Employer’s Liability
The employer is strictly liable to pay compensation if an employee suffers injury or death due to an accident arising out of and in the course of employment.
Liability arises irrespective of fault or negligence of the employer (strict liability).
4. Types of Compensation
Compensation can be for temporary disablement, permanent disablement (partial or total), or death.
Amount depends on the nature and extent of injury or disablement and wages of the worker.
5. Claim Procedure
The injured employee or dependents must submit a claim to the appropriate authority.
Compensation is awarded after investigation and assessment of the claim.
6. Employer’s Defenses
Employer can avoid liability if injury was caused by wilful disobedience or intoxication of the employee, or injury caused outside course of employment.
However, mere negligence of a fellow employee or natural accidents during work generally do not absolve the employer.
7. No-Fault Liability
The Act operates on the principle of no-fault liability, meaning the employer is liable even if not negligent.
Important Case Law
1. Workmen’s Compensation Commissioner v. Bombay Tyre Co. Ltd.
The court held that the injury must arise out of and in the course of employment.
Injury during a break or coming/leaving work is generally not covered unless expressly allowed.
Emphasized the causal connection between employment and injury.
2. General Manager, Central Inland Water Transport Corporation Ltd. v. B. Rajendra Nath
The court confirmed that the principle is strict liability and the employer must compensate irrespective of negligence.
However, if injury is caused by wilful disobedience or intoxication of the employee, employer may not be liable.
3. K. T. Plantation Pvt. Ltd. v. Workmen
Established that accidents due to natural causes or diseases contracted due to employment may also attract compensation.
Highlighted broad interpretation to include occupational diseases.
Summary of Features with Case Law
| Feature | Explanation | Relevant Case Example |
|---|---|---|
| Purpose | Compensation for work-related injuries/death | Workmen’s Compensation Commissioner v. Bombay Tyre Co. Ltd. |
| Scope | Applies to workers in hazardous employment | K. T. Plantation Pvt. Ltd. v. Workmen |
| Employer’s Liability | Strict liability irrespective of fault | General Manager, Central Inland Water Transport Corporation Ltd. v. B. Rajendra Nath |
| Types of Compensation | For temporary/permanent disablement or death | Workmen’s Compensation Commissioner case |
| Employer’s Defenses | Wilful disobedience, intoxication, injury outside employment | General Manager v. B. Rajendra Nath |
| No-Fault Liability | Liability without proving negligence | General Manager v. B. Rajendra Nath |
RELATED Blog
0 comments