Every employee wants to have a stable employment and be reimbursed for the expenses he has incurred. This is a criterion that all businesses, whether small or large, must meet. After all, the success of a firm is determined by its people. As a result, a company’s main goal is to safeguard its personnel and ensure their safety.
The “Employees Compensation Act, 1923” is a law that requires employers to compensate employees for any injuries they sustain in the course of their employment. This Act was previously known as the Workmen Compensation Act of 1923. When the employer is not obligated to compensate the employee-
- If the employee is not completely or partially disabled for more than three days as a result of the injury.
- If the harm does not result in death or permanent total disability, and it is caused by an accident that is directly caused by:
- If the injury is caused by an accident that is directly attributable to: the employee being under the influence of drink or drugs at the time of the accident.
- The employee’s wilful disobedience to an order if the rule is expressly stated or expressly formulated for the aim of ensuring employee safety; or
- Willful removal or disobedience by an employee of any safety guard or other device installed for the aim of ensuring employee safety.
When an employee goes above and beyond what is required of him in his job and puts himself in danger, the employer cannot be held accountable for the injuries he causes. Devidayal Ralyaram vs. Secretary of State is a case in point. The notion of additional risk was invoked as a defense, and the employer was not accountable for the compensation, according to the ruling. This is the doctrine of added peril.
Employees owe their employers an obligation to perform their duties with reasonable care in order to avoid accidents and injuries. Employers are vicariously accountable for their workers’ negligence, although they have the right to seek a contribution or indemnification from the negligent employee in certain instances. So, if both the employee and the employer are negligent, the employer will be liable for compensation to the amount of his own carelessness, not the employee’s. As a result, the compensation amount may be reduced because the employer will not be accountable for the employee’s negligence.
Employees and their dependents are only entitled to compensation under the Act if the accident resulted in occupational diseases. The accident must occur while on the job. Thus, the Act is primarily designed to protect employees by allowing them to seek compensation from their employers for medical expenses incurred as a result of an accident. The act follows the basic norm of vicarious liability. The master is the employer, and the servant is the employee. Only when the injury occurs during the course of employment and in the workplace does the employee receive compensation.
I have always been against Glorifying Over Work and therefore, in the year 2021, I have decided to launch this campaign “Balancing Life”and talk about this wrong practice, that we have been following since last few years. I will be talking to and interviewing around 1 lakh people in the coming 2021 and publish their interview regarding their opinion on glamourising Over Work.
If you are interested in participating in the same, do let me know.
The copyright of this Article belongs exclusively to Ms. Aishwarya Sandeep. Reproduction of the same, without permission will amount to Copyright Infringement. Appropriate Legal Action under the Indian Laws will be taken.
If you would also like to contribute to my website, then do share your articles or poems at firstname.lastname@example.org
We also have a Facebook Group Restarter Moms for Mothers or Women who would like to rejoin their careers post a career break or women who are enterpreneurs.
We are also running a series Inspirational Women from January 2021 to March 31,2021, featuring around 1000 stories about Indian Women, who changed the world. #choosetochallenge