Employee's Compensation Act, 1923

EMPLOYEE’S
COMPENSATION ACT,1923
PRESENTED BY:
MUSKAN VERMA
UID:21BLL1366
SUBJECT: LABOUR AND INDUSTRIAL LAW
TEACHER: SUMIT SIR
WHY WE NEED IT?
AMENDMENT
 The act extends to the whole of
India.
Title:-  Came into force- 1st JULY, 1924
1) Before – Workmen’s
Compensation Act  In 1884, Employer would consider
1923 compensation to employee only in
2) After - Title of the Act
fatal or major accidents.
“Employees
Compensation Act  The mining and factory inspectors
1923”. realized- Fatal Act, 1885 not
Words and expressions:- sufficient
3) Before - Refer to the
 Legislative assembly members,
words ‘workman’ or
‘workmen’ in the Act. experts in medicine, workers, and
4) After - They were insurance experts- COMMITTEE –
substituted by the led to- WORKMEN
words ‘employee’ or
COMPENSATION ACT,1923
‘employees’.
COVERAGE OF EMPLOYEES
APPLICABLE TO: NOT APPLICABLE TO:
 Mines  Members of armed forces of

 Factories
union
 Employees covered by ESI
 Plantations
Act, 1948. (Dependent's
 Transport Establishments benefits available)
 Construction Works  Casual Workers & workers
 Railways employed otherwise than for
 Ships
employer's trade or business
DEPENDANT {SECTION 2 (1)(d)}
WHOLLY DEPENDANT WHOLLY OR IN PART
WHETHER DEPENDANT ON THE
ON THE EARNINGS OF
ACTUALLY SO OR THE EMPLOYEES AT
EARNINGS OF THE
NOT EMPLOYEE AT THE TIME OF
THE TIME OF DEATH: DEATH
(a)a widower,
(a) a widow (b) a parent other than a widowed
(a)a son mother,
(b) a minor (b) a daughter who (c) a minor illegitimate son, an
legitimate or has attained the age
unmarried illegitimate daughter
or a daughter legitimate or
adopted son of 18 years illegitimate or adopted if
(c) who is infirm married and a minor or if
(c) unmarried widowed and a minor,
(not physically or
legitimate or (d) a minor brother or an unmarried
mentally strong) sister or a widowed sister if a
adopted daughter minor,
(d) a widowed (e) a widowed daughter-in-law,
mother (f) a minor child of a pre-deceased son,

(g) a minor child of a pre-deceased
daughter where no parent of the
child is alive, or
(h) a paternal grandparent if no parent
of the workman is alive.
PARTIAL DIABLEMENT
 Limiting person ability  Cannot perform the
TEMPORARY
same task again
PERMANENT
to work for short period
 Reduces earning  Reduces earning
capacity of employee in capacity of
any employment employee in every
 At the time of accident employment
 Example: A lawyer  Example: an
broke a leg. Able to employee lost his

perform duty via phone hearing after
but cannot go to court explosion in mines.
in physical form.
TOTAL DISABLEMENT
Whether temporary or permanent nature
Incapacitates employee for all work
Example: an employee came to repair an ill-
repaired transformer which led to
electrocution. That further lead to third degree
burn and paralysis.
EMPLOYER’S LIABILITY
FOR COMPENSATION
Employee
Personal injury
Accident
Arisen out and in course of employment
Death or permanent total disablement or
temporary disablement
SITUATIONS OF ACCIDENTS ARISING
OUT OF & IN THE COURSE OF
EMPLOYMENT
 Railway employee was ordered to travel to a certain station to
repair a water main. When he had finished the work & was
crossing the platform to catch the train, he slipped & died as a
result.
A watchman in the course of his duty lifted G.I.Pipe in order to
keep it in a safe place. While doing so, he received injury.
An employee suffered from heart disease & died on account of
strain of work by keeping continuously standing or walking.
COMPENSATION
1) At the time of injury workman must have
been engaged in the business of the employer
and must not be doing something for his
personal benefit;
 2) That accident occurred at the place where
he was performing his duties; and
 3) Injury must have resulted from some risk
incidental to the duties of the service, or
inherent in the nature or condition of
employment.
CASE
LAWS
SAVITRI DEVI V. BHARTI FILLING
STATION AND ANOTHER
The appellant’s son worked as driver with the
respondent, the owner of the tanker and he died
while on duty.
Filed petition for compensation- denied- no
connection between death and work of the
deceased.
High court held- wrongfully concluded-duty
was full of stress and strain- driver of oil tanker-
liable for compensation
BAI SHAKRI V. NEW
MANCKCHOWK MILLS CO. LTD.
 Deceased employed in the weaving department of mill.
 Duty hours- start at 3p.m.
 Before starting his work- meet a friend of other department
 Suffered heart attack at 3:20p.m.- admitted in hospital as ‘indoor
patient’ for a month
 Left the job and died after sometimes
 Concluded the injury caused was not out of and in the course of
employment
 Principles:
(1) Casual connection injury and accident and work done in course of
employment
(II) Evidence is strong enough to satisfy the reasonable man the work
contributed to be the cause of personal injury.

Employee's Compensation Act, 1923

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Employee's Compensation Act, 1923

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Employee's Compensation Act, 1923

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

EMPLOYEE’S

 Mines  Members of armed forces of

mother (f) a minor child of a pre-deceased son,

same task again

broke a leg. Able to employee lost his

You might also like