Case Study : Saurashtra Salt Manufacturing Co. v/s Bai Valu Raja , AIR 1958 SC 881

FACT OF THE CASE:

In this case appellant was the employer of salt manufacturing company. He employed both permanent as well as temporary employees. Salt manufacturing situated near a creek opposite to Porbandar town. There was two ways to go to manufacturing company . On over land it takes six to seven miles takes to reach the manufacturing company and the other way was by cross the creek by boat. The regular way used by the workers were through crossing creek. At the Porbandar end of the creek is the Asmavati Ghat and the creek can be crossed from there at point A to the other side at point B One day the boat get collapsed while carrying certain workmen’s who were employed under appellant due to bad weather and over load. Some of the workmen’s were drowned and seven cases has been filed under Workmen Compensation Act. A commission has been appointed for workmen compensation and the commission found that the accident arose out of and in the course of employment of the workmen and awarded compensation accordingly. Against the decision of commission the appellate filed a special leave appeal in High Court. High Court dismissed the appeal and the appellant further moved to Supreme Court  

ISSUE OF THE CASE:

  • Whether there was any arrangements between the appellant and the ferrywales for its workmen’s to be ferried to and from the salt manufacturing company and, if so what were the terms thereof?
  • Whether appellant was liable to pay any compensation?
  • Whether the employee was still in the course of his employment when he was on his journey between point A and point B?

DECISION OF THE COURT:

The appellate court finds that there was no agreement between the ferry walas to ferry to and from the salt works across the creek and court with the evidence finds that the boat ferried across the creek are used by the public and everyone Who has to pay charges for being ferried across the creek The boat ferried across the creek are used by public everyone. When the workmen is on a public road or public transport he is there as any other members of the public and is not there in the course of his employment .

The worker left point B in a boat or left point A , but had not yet reached the point B , he could not be said to be in the course of his employment. Any accident happening to him on the journey between these to point could not be said to have arises out of and in the course of his employment.
The accident in this case took place when the boat was almost at the point A . Therefore the appellant can not be made liable for the accident . The court said aside the compensation to pay and appellant have to pay cost of the respondent of his appeal and not entitled to recover the compensation money already paid. 

The accident in this case took place when the boat was almost at the point A . Therefore the appellant can not be made liable for the accident . The court said aside the compensation to pay and appellant have to pay cost of the respondent of his appeal and not entitled to recover the compensation money already paid. 

CRITICAL EVALUATION OF JUDGEMENT:

The Employees Compensation Act was a social security measures. The act has been passed to soften the rigorous of common law . The employee get cheaper and quicker procedure for recovery of compensation through special tribunal. However , the above rule is subjected to the theory bof Notional Extension.

This was the case in which Supreme Court laid down the theory. According to this theory the employer is liable for the injury of the employee even if he is away from the some reasonable extension in both time and place. Then, an employee may be regarded as in the course of his employment . In this case the accident took place beyond the reasonable extension and there is no accident arising out of and in the course of employment.

PROVISION OF LAW:

• Employees Compensation Act, 1923
• Employees State Insurance Act, 1948
• Labour and industrial relations.
• Doctrine of Notional Extension.

REFERENCE:

  1. indiankanoon.org
  2. lawyerservices.in
  3. Labour and industrial law
  4. Employees Compensation Act,1923.

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.

IF YOU ARE INTERESTED IN PARTICIPATING IN THE SAME, DO LET ME KNOW.

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.