0

A WORKMAN IS NOT IN THE COURSE OF HIS EMPLOYMENT FROM THE MOMENT HE LEAVES HIS HOME AND IS ON HIS WAY TO HIS WORK: SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

This particular decision is upheld by the Supreme Court of India through the division bench of  Justice N Bhagwati, Justice S J Imam, Justice P Gajendragadkar in the case of Saurashtra Salt Manufacturing vs Bai Valu Raja And Ors (AIR 1958 SC 881, (1958) IILLJ 249 SC)

FACTS

Saurashtra Salt manufacturing Co. employs workmen each temporary and permanent. Appellant was one among the temporary employees of the aforementioned Company. The salt works of the appellant were placed close to a creek opposite to the city of Porbandar and there have been 2 ways to reach the salt works from the aforementioned city, one associate land route nearly six to seven miles long and also the alternative via the stream that the boat was needed to achieve the destination. At the Porbandar finish of the creek is that the Asmavati stairway and also the creek may be crossed from there at purpose A to the opposite aspect at point B that is on a sandy piece of land. Those crossing the creek from point A alight from the boat at purpose B. From purpose B, once crossing the sandy space, one will reach the salt seawall of the salt works and also the salt works itself.

Few employees who travelled by boat to arrive at the working environment and keeping in mind that getting back to a portion of the workers were drowned bringing about 7 cases for compensation additionally being recorded under the Workmen’s Compensation Act. The Commissioner for Workmen’s Compensation tracked down that the mishap emerged out of over the span of the work of the labourers. The Appellant requested in the High Court of Saurashtra (Now Mumbai) and the court excused the allure after expounding conversation. The Appellant party reached Supreme Court and asks for a clear meaning of “arising out of and in the course of employment” and “Doctrine of Notional Extension”.

Judgement

As a rule, the employment of a workman does not initiate until he reached the place of employment and desists when he leaves the place of employment, the journey to and from the place of employment being excluded. It is grounded reality, in any case, that this standard is dependent upon the theory of notional extension of the business premises in order to include a region which the worker passes and re-passes in going to and in leaving the genuine work environment. There might be some sensible extension in both time and place and a labourer might be viewed as over the span of his work despite the fact that he had not reached or had left his manager’s premises. Current realities and conditions of each case should be analyzed cautiously to decide if the mishap emerged out of hand over the span of the work of a labourer, keeping in see consistently this theory of public extension. When a labourer is on a public street or a public spot or on a public vehicle he is there like some other individual from general society and isn’t there throughout his business except if the actual idea of his work makes it important for him to be there, The nearness of the spot of the accident to the work environment is unessential for this reason. Indeed, even the notional extension of the work environment ends when the worker arrives at a public street where the individuals from general society reserve a privilege to practice whatever correct they have [Commrs. for Port of Calcutta v Kaniz Fatema AIR 1961 Cal. 310]. A worker isn’t throughout his work from the second he goes out and is en route to his work. He surely is throughout his business in the event that he arrives at the work environment or a point or a region that comes surprisingly close to notional extension, outside of which the business isn’t at risk to pay remuneration for any mishap happening to him.

The Supreme Court held that on current realities of the case the accident couldn’t be said to have emerged out of and throughout work while crossing the river in light of the fact that the theory of notional extension couldn’t reach out to where the boat capsized.

“PRIME LEGAL is a full-service law firm that has won a National Award and has more than 20 years of experience in an array of sectors and practice areas. Prime legal fall into a category of best law firm, best lawyer, best family lawyer, best divorce lawyer, best divorce law firm, best criminal lawyer, best criminal law firm, best consumer lawyer, best civil lawyer.”

JUDGEMENT REVIEWED BY NAISARGIKA MISHRA

 

 

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Open chat