The Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923 , as amended

The Workmen's Compensation Act 1923 is a central legislation, which provides for payment of compensation for injuries suffered by a workman in the course of and arising out of his employment according to the nature of injuries suffered and disability incurred. Where death results from the injury, the amount of compensation is payable to the dependants of the workmen. In other words, the said Act provides for the payment of compensation by the employer to his employees (for their dependents in the event of fatal accidents), if personal injury is caused to them by accidents arising out of and in the course of their employment.

The Workmen's Compensation Act was amended (as per W.C. Amendment Act 2000) to substantially increase compensation amount to workers in case of death and disability. Depending upon the age and wage of the worker, s/he or her/his dependents can get the maximum compensation upto Rs. 5.48 lakhs for disability and Rs. 4.56 lakhs for death. The minimum compensation to the workers in case of death has been increased therein from Rs. 50,000 to Rs.80,000 /- and in case of permanent disability from Rs. 60,000 to Rs. 90,000 /- . The other salient feature of the said amendment is that all workers have been brought within the ambit of the Act irrespective of their nature of employment. As the Act stands of now, the maximum compensation payable is upon the following scale (as per W.C. Amendment Act 2000)

Background facts in a nutshell:-

Shri. J. Venkaiah was working in Nellore Thermal Station, Nellore. On 24.9.1994, he died at the work spot. His wife filed an application before the Commissioner claiming compensation of Rs.1,00,000/- on the ground that the death was due to stress and strain closely linked with the employment of her late husband and, therefore, attributable to an accident arising out of and in the course of employment , which was accordingly awarded by the said Commissioner. Aggrieved with the Order, the employer filed an appeal under Section 30 of the Act before the High Court. The primary stand was that the Shri J. Venkaiah did not die on account of any injury sustained by him "in any accident arising out of and in the course of his employment" . Hearing the appeal, the Andhra Pradesh High Court noted that there was no injury as such, but Shri J. Venkaiah died due to heart attack at the work spot. It was held by the High Court that the nature of the job, which the deceased workman was doing, could not have caused any stress and strain and, therefore, the death due to heart attack cannot be said to have been caused by any accident arising out of and in the course of his employment .

The legality of the said High Court judgment holding that the deceased workman was not entitled to any compensation under the Workmen Compensation Act, 1923 (in short the 'Act') was questioned by his wife before the Apex Court. It was submitted that whenever a person dies as a result of heart attack at the work spot, it could be said that he died due to the stress and strain of the working conditions .

Hon'ble Apex Court observed as follows :-

•  Under Section 3(1) of the said Act, it has to be established that there was some casual connection between the death of the workman and his employment. If the workman dies a natural result of the disease, which he was suffering, or while suffering from a particular disease he dies of that disease as a result of wear and tear, of the employment no liability would be fixed upon the employer.

•  But if the employment is a contributory cause or has accelerated the death, or if the death was due not only to the disease but also the disease coupled with the employment, then it can be said that the death arose out of the employment and the employer would be liable.

•  The expression "accident" means an untoward mishap, which is not expected or designed . "Injury" means physiological injury .

•  In Fenton v. Thorley & Co. Ltd. (1903) AC 448 , it was observed that the expression "accident" is used in the popular and ordinary sense of the word as denoting an unlooked for mishap or an untoward event which is not expected or designed.

•  The above view of Lord Macnaghten was qualified by the speech of Lord Haldane A.C. in Trim Joint District, School Board of Management v. Kelly (1914) A.C. 676 as follows:

"I think that the context shows that in using the word "designed" Lord Macnaghten was referring to designed by the sufferer".

•  In the present case, it has been brought on record that the deceased was suffering from chest disease and was previously being treated for such disease. The High Court also noted that the job of the deceased was only to switch on or off and, therefore, the doctor had clearly opined that there was no scope for any stress or strain in his duties.

•  In view of the factual findings recorded the High Court's judgment does not suffer from any infirmity. However, the amount has already been paid to the appellants.

Though it was held that the appellant was not entitled for any compensation , taking into consideration the peculiar circumstances of the case, Hon'ble Apex Court directed that there should be no recovery from the appellant of any amount paid as compensation.

Before Parting :-

Though the said issue is now settled by the Hon'ble Apex Court, netizens may like to peruse a detailed presentation on the subject matter by Delhi High Court in the case of M/s Som Dutt Builders Ltd vs Smt. Phool Kumari for a diverse view. Interestingly, the Delhi High Court judgment was not referred to in the above verdict.

(See 2006-HRIOL-17-SC-SERVICE in 'Laws 4 You')