Apex Law Journal
Apex Law Journal
An online law journal reporting latest and important judgments of Hon'ble Supreme Court of India.                                                                                                                         Click here to get free legal updates via email                                                                                                                          Click here to download forms (Address Form, List Of Documents and Memorandum Of Appearance)
User Name :
Password :
New Subscriber
Forgot Password
 

Editor

Neha Goel, Advocate

Advisory Board

S.C. Khunger, Advocate

Rohit Bansal, Advocate

Varinder Singh Kanwar, Advocate

Hittan Nehra, Advocate

Judgments on Workmen Compensation Act, 1923

Thursday, March 12, 2009
Workmen Compensation Act, 1923

Workmen Compensation Act, 1923 — Section 3(1) — Death of workman — Compensation — Held, under Section 3(1) 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 death because 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.
 

 
Workmen Compensation Act, 1923

Workmen Compensation Act, 1923 — Section 3(1) — Death of workman — Compensation — Factors which would have to be established to attract the provisions of Section 3 of the Act, interalia, are : —

(1) There must be a causal connection between the injury and the accident and the accident and the work done in the course of employment.

(2) The onus is upon the applicant to show that it was the work and the resulting strain which contributed to or aggravated the injury.

(3) If the evidence brought on records establishes a greater probability which satisfies a reasonable man that the work contributed to the causing of the personal injury, it would be enough for the workman to succeed, but the same would depend upon the fact of each case.     

 
Workmen Compensation Act, 1923

Workmen Compensation Act, 1923 — Section 3(1) — Death of workman due to accident — Compensation — Held, an accident may lead to death but that an accident had taken place must be proved — Only because a death has taken place in course of employment will not amount to accident — In other words, death must arise out of accident — There is no presumption that an accident had occurred — Further held, in a case of this nature to prove that accident has taken place, factors which would have to be established, inter alia, are : (1) stress and strain arising during the course of employment, (2) nature of employment, (3) injury aggravated due to stress and strain.

 
Workmen Compensation Act, 1923

Workmen Compensation Act, 1923 — Section 3(1) — The expression “accident” means an untoward mishap which is not expected or designed — “Injury” means physiological injury.  

 
Thursday, November 13, 2008
Workmen Compensation Act, 1923

Workmen Compensation Act, 1923 — Distinction between a ‘total disablement’ and ‘total permanent disablement’ — Held, there exists a distinction between a ‘total disablement’ and ‘total permanent disablement’ as contained in Schedule I Part I of the 1923 Act — Sufferance of fracture by itself resulting in shortening of leg to some extent does not come within the purview of the ‘permanent total disablement’ even under the 1923 Act.  

 
Monday, December 18, 2006
Workmen Compensation Act, 1923

Workmen’s Compensation Act, 1923 — Interest on compensation — Insurance Company, held, has no statutory liability to pay interest on amount of compensation awarded under Workmen’s Compensation Act, 1923 — The statutory liability under the Workmen’s Compensation Act is on the employer — High Court, in the present case, held, was not correct in holding that the appellant-insurance company, is also liable to pay the interest on the amount of compensation awarded by the Commissioner — The workman has to recover it from the employer — Appeal allowed.

 
Act Topic
Rule Citation
Keyword
 
Free Text Search
 
Follow us on :
(Best view with 1024x768 Resolution)
© All rights including Copyrights and rights of translations etc, reserved and vested exclusively with Deepak Publications. No part of this publication may be reproduced or transmitted in any form or by any means, electronics, mechanical, photocopying, recording or otherwise, or stored in any retrival system of any nature without the written permission of the copyright owner.

By using this site, you (and any entity on whose behalf your are acting) are consenting to be bound by Terms & Conditions, Privacy Policy & Disclaimer Clause.