Case summary on-
Dudhiben Dharamshi and Ors. v. New Jehangir Vakil Mills Ltd. (Decided on 15 December,1975)
Facts-
An employee of the New Jehangir Vakil Mills Limited was assigned to work on the second shit that began at 3:30 PM. According to the rules of the mill, all the workers should be present within the compound of the mill before their shift commences. The deceased employee on 4th April 1966, was near the gate of the mill around the same time when he was collided by a cyclist leading to a fatal accident. The employee died at the very moment. According to the witnesses present, there was no line formed and everybody was standing in a group. The deceased was standing at a distance of 10 to 15 feet away from the main gate at about 3:20 PM.
The dependants of the deceased claimed for compensation on the basis of principle of notional extension which was not agreed upon by the Commissioner as well the Learned Singh Judge. An appeal challenging the same was made to the Gujarat High Court.
Issue-
Whether an accident occurred outside the working area and before the commencement of work be termed as ‘accident arising in the course of employment’ and ‘accident arising out of employment’ as per the principle of notional extension?
Judgement-
The court discussed the case of Saurashtra Salt Manufacturing Company v. Bai Velu Raja wherein the court had pointed out that as per the theory of notional extension, there must be a reasonable extension in both the time and place from the place of accident even though he had not reached or not left the premises of the employer. There should be a reasonable conclusion drawn as to why the employee was at that place and at that particular time. If the same can be deduced as a reason for his employment, then it should be considered ‘arising out of employment or in the course of employment’. The facts and the circumstances need to be checked thoroughly in order to come to a conclusion. If the employee is on a public road because the nature of his employment made it necessary for him to be there, then it shall be seen as in the course of his employment. In such a case, the employer shall be liable to pay the compensation.
Further the case of B.E.S.T. Undertaking v. Mrs. Agnes was discussed wherein the court pointed out that the employment does not begin when the employee removes his tools and starts the job. Similarly, it does not end when he leaves his tools. It begins when he starts using different means of access to be at that place of employment.
In the case of Mackinnon Mackenzie v. I.M. Issak, the court held that there should be a causal relationship between the accident that occurred and the employment. The term ‘arising of employment’ shall include the nature of the employment, the conditions laid down by the employer, the obligations that are to be followed by the employee as well as other incidents. If due to any of the specified reasons, an accident occurs causing any injury or death, then it would be termed as ‘arising out of employment’.
Noting the reasons stated in the above cases, the Gujarat High Court held that the principle of notional extension definitely existed in the present case as the employee was outside the main gate at 3:20 PM so that he could enter the mill right on time which was 3:25 PM. Further, he was only 10-15 ft. away from the gate. In order to be right on time as ordered by the employer, the employee was at a place of danger and that is when the accident occurred. The court allowed the appeal of the dependants of the deceased and allowed the compensation amount of Rs. 7000 along with 6% interest from the date of application.
Principle of Notional Extension-
In simpler terms it would mean that the employer is liable to pay compensation to the employee in case of an accident, injury or death that occurs even if the employee is not in the work premises. It would still be termed as an injury, accident or death arising in the course of employment since there is a causal relationship between the place and time of accident and place and time of work.
0 Comments