Page 136 - DCOM207_LABOUR_LAWS

Unit 8: Rules Regarding the Workmen’s Compensation Act

Self Assessment Notes

Fill in the blanks:
4. The .................. Government may make rules to carry out the purpose of this Act.

5. The power to make rules conferred by section .................. shall be subject to the condition of
the rules being made after previous publication.
6. Every rule made under this Act by the Central Government shall be laid as soon as may be
after it is made before each .................. .

8.3 Defences of the Employer

Prior to the passing of this Act, the employer was liable to pay compensation only if he was guilty
of negligence. Even in case of proved negligence, the employer could get rid of his liability by
using any of the following defences:
1. The Doctrine of Assumed Risks: If the employee knew the nature of the risks he was
undertaking when working in a factory, the employer had no liability for injuries. The
court assumed in such case that the workman had voluntarily accepted the risks inci dental
to his work. The doctrine followed from the rule Volenti Non Fit Injuria, which means
that one, who has volunteered to take a risk of injury, is not entitled to damages if injury
actually occurs.

2. The Doctrine of Common Employment: Under this rule, when several Persons work
together for a common purpose and one of them is injured by some act or omission of
another, the employer is not liable to pay compensation for the injury.
3. The Doctrine of Contributory Negligence: Under this rule a person is not entitled to
damages for injury if he was himself guilty of negligence and such negligence contributed
to the injury.

Did u know? The three aforesaid defences and the rule “no negligence no liabi lity made.”
It almost impossible for an employee to obtain relief in cases of accident. The Workmen’s
Compensation Act of 1923 radi cally changed the law.
According to this Act, the employer is liable to pay compensation irrespective of negligence.
The Act looks upon compensation as relief to the workman and not as damages payable by the
employer for a wrongful act or tort. Hence contributory negligence by the employee does not
disentitle him from relief. For the same reason, it is not possible for the employer to plead to the
defence of common employment or assumed risks for the purpose of avoiding liability. Thus the
Act makes it possible for the workman to get compensation for injuries, unimpeded by the legal
obstacles set up by the law of Torts.

Two ways of claiming compensation

An injured workman may, if he wishes, file a civil suit for damages against the employer.
Section 3(5) of the Workmen’s Compensation Act, however, provides that if such a suit is filed,
compensation cannot be claimed under the Act and if compensation has been claimed under the
Act, or if an agreement has been entered into between the employer and the workman for the
payment of .compensation, no suit can be filed in the civil court. Thus the workman has to choose
between two reliefs –

(i) civil suit for damages and
(ii) claim for compensation under the Act. He cannot have both.

LOVELY PROFESSIONAL UNIVERSITY 131