Understanding the provisions of The Employees Compensation Act, 1923

The Employees Compensation Act deals with provisions relating to payment of compensation to employees. Earlier there when a employee injured or died due to accident during the course of employment the aggrieved party could approach the Civil Court for relief. The relief can only claim if the employee could prove the guilty of the employer. Even though the employer get escape from the liability by making defence like volenti non fit injuria , which means when a worker voluntarily take risk with full knowledge about the danger assumed in the work . The situation where any injury caused by the co-workers during the employment, the employer is exempted from liability.

When the accident arrives out of the negligence of the employer himself is also a defence for the employer . All this provision provisions affected the poor employees . Hence the Employees State Insurance Act was passed and this act extend to whole of the India including Jammu and Kashmir.

By the commencement of this act the employer is liable to pay compensation to employees for injuries arising out of the course of employment. It also includes the compensation for the occupational disease arising out in the course of employment. The employee can also claim compensation from common law but it takes too much time and the only thing is the employee can not make claim under both laws . The Employees Compensation Act provides simple and quick remedy for claiming compensation. In order to claim compensation under this act, there must exist a master servant relationship , their must be a contract between the employer and employee and the important thing is the purpose of employment was for the employer’s trade or Business.

Conditions for the payment of compensation are as follows

  • Injury have caused to the employee.
  • Injury must have caused by accident.
  • Accident must arises out of the course of employment.
  • Injury must have resulted in death or disablement .

The injury must be caused to the employee is required and not the injury caused to his family. It is not required that the injury must be always be a physical injury. It was held in Yates v. South Kirkby Collieries , case that the injury can be both physical and mental for which the employer is liable. The disablement caused should have Last for more than 3day and only then the employer is liable. Other wise no damages for the employee. The employee when engaged in the business of the employer and he should not be doing anything for his own personal benefits and injury aroused out of employment that is what the Employees Compensation Act deals with.

It was the concept that the employer is not liable for the accident which caused outside that is before reaching the workplace and after leaving the workplace. This concept was subjected to The theory of notional extension, according to this theory the employer is liable for the injury caused to the employee even if he is away from the place of employment this was held in the case Saurashtra Salt Manufacturing co. v. Bai Valu Raja .

When the injury or death caused to the employee during his employment due to intoxication and when the employee willfully disobey the order expressly given for the safety by removing the safety measures which he knows it might cause injury . In such situations the employer is not liable . When the disobedience and omissions on the part of the employee resulted in death or total permanent injury, such situations the employer is liable even though the employee is guilty.

The main aim of the act was to provide the workmen and their dependence relief for the injury arouse out of the cause of environment. This act includes who has not insured under Employees State Insurance act 1948. A worker can not afford to claim compensation for the injury under the common law since the common law provides defence for the employer to escape from the liability , but the Employees Compensation Act provides easy and faster remedy for claiming compensation from the employer.

Aishwarya Says:

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.


Do follow me on FacebookTwitter  Youtube and Instagram.

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 secondinnings.hr@gmail.com

In the year 2021, we wrote about 1000 Inspirational Women In India, in the year 2022, we would be featuring 5000 Start Up Stories.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

Create a website or blog at WordPress.com

Up ↑

%d bloggers like this: