Page 62 - DMGT306_MERCANTILE_LAWS_II

Unit 3: 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 ...........................

3.3 Defenses 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 defenses:
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 incidental
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 defenses and the rule “no negligence no liability made.”
It is almost impossible for an employee to obtain relief in cases of accident. The Workmen’s
Compensation Act of 1923 radically 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
defense 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

LOVELY PROFESSIONAL UNIVERSITY 57