Source: https://www.lawteacher.net/free-law-essays/contract-law/legal-obligation-on-employer-to-pay-compensation-contract-law-essay.php
Timestamp: 2019-04-23 00:16:55+00:00

Document:
There are three components in the definition  which are – (1) personal injury (2) accident (3) arising out of and in the course of the employment. This last point is the key of this section. More over these two phrases has been subjected to different kind of judicial interpretation and in varieties of cases the court has given their opinion about the meaning of these two phrases. The originality of these two phrases is an English Act of 1897 which was followed in different countries legislation including India.  The term “scope of employment” was replaced by “in the course of employment” in nineteenth century.  With advancement in the field of industry workmen have become more insecure with regard to their employment and as a result of that many social security legislation has come up. This Act is also among them.  The judiciary has also realized this purpose of the act and interpreted the terms widely and gave birth to doctrine of notional extension.
The objective of this paper is to explore the meaning of the term “out of employment” in this act given by the judiciary and the development of theory of “notional extension” by the judiciary taking the help of different cases laws.
It is not easy to determine the scope of this term and lay down the test to determine what is “arising out of employment”. There were many attempts to construct a meaning of this term. It has been tried to explain by nature, condition, objects and incidents of employment.  To understand it we need to look at it from very beginning taking the help of English cases as well as Indian cases.
In Simpson v. Sinclair  a workman was injured because of a wall fall which has no connection with her employment. But this wall fall resulted into fall of a shed where she was working. Lord Shaw observed that “arising out” of is not limited to the nature of the employment but applies to the employment as such, to its nature, its condition, its obligation and its incidents. If because of these a workmen is expose to special danger than that can be brought under the preview of “arising out of employment”.  In this case court has given a wider meaning of the term and did not stick to any specific condition to fulfill.
“The words “in the course of the employment” mean “in the course of the work which the workman is employed to do and which is incidental to it.” The words “arising out of employment” are understood to mean that during the course of the employment, injury has resulted from some risk incidental to the duties of the service, when, unless engaged in the duty owing to the master, it is reasonable to believe the workman would not otherwise have suffered.
Following the above judgment in State of Rajasthan v. Ram Prasad and another  supreme court said that the accident must a casual connection with employment and arise out of it. It was also said that even if the workman has died because of natural forces he can get compensation showing that his employment exposed him to such hazard.
It is not sufficient to make the employer liable if the injury occurred in the working hour and the place of employment but there need to have some connection between the accident and nature of the duty the workmen has been given.  The workman should be doing something which is part of his work though it need not be the actual work.  In Munshi & Co. v. Yeshwant Tukaram Teli  the workmen was employed in a godown and injured because of explosion. Justice Macklin said that “an accident cannot be said to be arise out of employment unless the risk of such an accident has been, even before the accident, inherent in the employment itself to a greater or lesser extent”  In Lancashire & Yorkshire Railway v. Highley  Lord Summon observed that is the part of his employment to hazard, to suffer or to do that which caused injury? If yes then it can be said that the accident arose out of employment.  Here court examined that whether the danger is part of employment or not.
The workman was employed on or performing the duties at the time of accident.
That the accident occurred at or about the place where he was performing these duties or where the performance of the duties required him to be present.
That the immediate act which led to or resulted in the accident has some form of casual relation with the performance of these duties, and such casual connection could be held to exist if the immediate act which led to the accident is not so remote from the sphere of his duties or the performance thereof , as to be regarded as something foreign to them.
There are certain exception to the above rule like the accident involve some risk common to general public and if he by his own act expose himself to some added peril and has accident.
In Weaver v. Tredegar Iron Coal Co.  House of Lords after examining a large number of authorities given a wider meaning of “duty” but did not negated the duty test.  In this case lord Atkin said that there can be no doubt that the course of employment cannot be limited to the time or place of the specific work which the workman is employed to do. It does not necessarily end when the “‘down tools” signal is given, or when the actual workshop where he is working is left. In other words, the employment may run on its course by its own momentum beyond the actual stopping place. There may be some reasonable extension in both time and space.”  Lord Porter further said that if an accident occurs while coming to the workplace or leaving the place can be out of and in the course of employment if he is bound by the way he proceed under the terms of the contract of service express or implied.  Here duty test was confirmed.
In Union of India v. Mrs . Noor Jahan  a railway gangman was ordered by his employer to go to another place for cleaning and in the way from one place to another accident happened. Justice Sukla observed that the accident has occurred in the duty hour and when he was going to do his duty on behalf of his employer and he concluded that the accident has occurred in the course of his employment.
There are some situations where this doctrine does not apply. When a workman is on the public road or public place and not there for fulfilling the obligation and his work does not make necessary to be there. The proximity of the work premises and spot of accident become immaterial. The notional extension of the place of work cease when workman come to a public road.  There were some clarification made in the next case in this matter.
In later cases the court took more liberate stand in expanding the definition of notional extension realizing the social view point and objective of the act. The employee died on the way towards his workplace because of communal riot.  It was argued by the appellant that the person died before the commencement of his work and outside the work place.  There is no connection between the accident and the employment.  High court of Madras has negated all this argument and allowed the compensation.
The term “arising out of” has been subjected to judicial interpretation from the very beginning and in most of the times it has been seen that court has tried to give wide meaning to it. This phrase has been most of the time coupled with the “arising out of employment” . Even thought the meaning of these two phrases are different then also there is an inseperable connection between them. Previously it was thought that arising “in the course” is a big circle and “ out of” is a small circle within it. But the new notion is that this two phrases are different circle which intersect somewhere.  This two criteria need to fulfill to get compensation. These two phrases are conjunctive under this act.  If these terms have been disjunctive a large area could have been covered and more number of workers could have been benefited and fulfill more efficiently the objective of the act as it would have been sufficient to prove only one condition.
Even thought the judiciary has come up with the concept of notional extension which essentially wider the scope of the terms and cover the areas which is not conventionally considered under this terms. This doctrine appeared to be very helpful for workmen to get facility given under this act.
"Legal obligation on employer to pay compensation." LawTeacher.net. 11 2013. All Answers Ltd. 04 2019 <https://www.lawteacher.net/free-law-essays/contract-law/legal-obligation-on-employer-to-pay-compensation-contract-law-essay.php?vref=1>.
"Legal obligation on employer to pay compensation." LawTeacher. LawTeacher.net, November 2013. Web. 23 April 2019. <https://www.lawteacher.net/free-law-essays/contract-law/legal-obligation-on-employer-to-pay-compensation-contract-law-essay.php?vref=1>.
LawTeacher. November 2013. Legal obligation on employer to pay compensation. [online]. Available from: https://www.lawteacher.net/free-law-essays/contract-law/legal-obligation-on-employer-to-pay-compensation-contract-law-essay.php?vref=1 [Accessed 23 April 2019].
LawTeacher. Legal obligation on employer to pay compensation [Internet]. November 2013. [Accessed 23 April 2019]; Available from: https://www.lawteacher.net/free-law-essays/contract-law/legal-obligation-on-employer-to-pay-compensation-contract-law-essay.php?vref=1.

References: v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v.