BEFORE THE HON’BLE OFFICE FOR WORKMEN

COMPENSATION, PUNE
AT SHIVAJI NAGAR, PUNE

UNDER SECTION 19 OF THE EMPLOYEE COMPENSATION ACT, 1923

CASE NO.___/2019
(UNDER SECTON 19 OF EMPLOYEE COMPENSATION ACT ,1923 )

MR. RANJAN………………………………………….………………………….CLAIMANT

V.

PANKHUDI CLOTH FACTORY ………………….………….……...………...RESPONDENT

MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF THE CLAIMANT

DRAWN AND FILED BY THE COUNSEL FOR CLAIMANT
 Page |2

LABOUR LAW INTERNAL MOOT

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Index Of Authorities ....................................................................................................................... 3

I. List of Abbreviation and Acronyms:- .................................................................................. 3

II. List Of Cases:- ..................................................................................................................... 3

Statement Of Jurisdiction................................................................................................................ 5

Statement Of Facts .......................................................................................................................... 6

Statement Of Issues......................................................................................................................... 7

Summary Of Arguments ................................................................................................................. 8

Arguments Advanced...................................................................................................................... 9

Prayer ............................................................................................................................................ 19

MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF THE CLAIMANT

-DRAWN AND FILED BY THE COUNSEL FOR THE CLAIMANT-
 Page |3

LABOUR LAW INTERNAL MOOT

INDEX OF AUTHORITIES

I. LIST OF ABBREVIATION AND ACRONYMS:-

AIR………………………………………………………… All India Reporter

Art. …………………………………………………………………….Article
&………………………………………………………………………… And
Anr…………………………………………………………………… Another
Bom………………………………………………………………….. Bombay
Del. ……………………………………………………………………...Delhi
Ed…………………………………………………………………….. Edition
Govt…………………………………………………………….. Government
Jt………………………………………………………………………..Joint
Ltd. ………………………………………………………………….Limited
Ors…………………………………………………………………… Others
¶…………………………………………………………………. Paragraph
Sec……………………………………………………,……………. Section
SC……………………………………………………,……. Supreme Court
SCC ………………………………………………….Supreme Court Cases
i.e.…………………………………………………………………….. that is
U.P…………………………………………………………….Uttar Pradesh
v……………………………………………………………………... versus
vol…………………………………………………………………. Volume

MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF THE CLAIMANT

-DRAWN AND FILED BY THE COUNSEL FOR THE CLAIMANT-
 Page |4

LABOUR LAW INTERNAL MOOT

II. LIST OF CASES:-

1. Bhagubai v. Central Railway; A.I.R. 1955 Bom. 105

2. Branch Manager, New India Assurance Co. Ltd. v. Siddappa, Major;, 2004 LLR 731 (Kant HC).

3. Executive Engineer 19th Div. R.C.P., Bikancr v. Heeraram,; 1982 (44) RR 179 Raj: 1980 Raj

LW 412

4. India News Chronicle Ltd v Luis Lazarus ; AIR 1951 Punj. 102

5. Joint District School vs. Kelly ; (1914) AC 667

6. Kalayni P. v. Divisional Manager, Southern Railway (Personal Branch), Divisional Office,

Madras;, 2004 LLR 207 (Mad HC): 2004 1 LLJ 49.

7. Leela Devi v. Ramlal Rahu, 1990 LLR 213 (HP)

8. M/S Star Press vs Meena Devi ; C.M. Appl. No. 2810/2017 (Delhi High Court)

9. Nisbet v. Rayne and Burn; 1910 (2) K.B.D. 689

10. Oriental Insurance Co. Lid. v. Nanguli Singh,; 1995 LLJ HC ORS (298).

11. Parle Products, Ltd. v. Subir Mukherjee 2001 (I) L.L.J 964.

12. Rita Devi v. New India Assurance Company, Ltd (2000) 5 SCC 113

13. Smt. Satiya v. Sub-Divisional Officer, Public Works Department Narsimhapur; 1974 (2) L.L.N.

204

14. State of Maharashtra v. Arti ; 2008 ACJ, 1406 (Bombay High Court)

15. United India Insurance Company Ltd. v. Philo 1996 (3) L.L.N. 116

16. Varkeyachan v. Thomman ; 1979 (1) L.L.N. 477,

MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF THE CLAIMANT

-DRAWN AND FILED BY THE COUNSEL FOR THE CLAIMANT-
 Page |5

LABOUR LAW INTERNAL MOOT

STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION

The Claimant has approached the Hon’ble office of Commissioner for Workmen’s
compensation, Pune under Section 191 of the Employee Compensation Act, 1923 as he has an
inherent power to hear and adjudicate matters regarding compensation to employees.

1
Section 19 under “The Employee Compensation Act, 1923” - If any question arises in any proceedings under this
Act as to the liability of any person to pay compensation (including any question as to whether a person injured is or
is not a employee or as to the amount or duration of compensation (including any question as to the nature or extent
of disablement), the question shall, in default of agreement, be settled by a Commissioner.
MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF THE CLAIMANT
-DRAWN AND FILED BY THE COUNSEL FOR THE CLAIMANT-
 Page |6

LABOUR LAW INTERNAL MOOT

STATEMENT OF FACTS

1. Mr. Ranjan was employed as a supervisor in Pankhudi Cloth factory on 1 July 2013.His
official work hours were stipulated to be from 10.00 am to5.00pm and his appointment order
stated that he would be Rs.200/-per hour for overtime along with his otherwise stipulated salary
of Rs. 25,000/- per month.

2. On 15th August 2014, Mr. Ranjan finished his work and started to go home. On his way back,
he received a call from the floor manager who asked him to return to the factory as the night duty
supervisor had gotten into an accident and could not make it to duty.

3. Accordingly, Mr. Ranjan went back to the factory and started going about his duties. At
around 9.00pm in the night, two of the workers, Ratul and Sanjeev, got into a scuffle and Mr.
Ranjan intervened. He reprimanded both the workers and ordered them to get back to work.

Sanjeev was very embarrassed as Mr. Ranjan had reprimanded them in front of the other
workers.

4. He hatched a plan to hurt him and removed a sharp object from one of the machines that were
awaiting repair in the factory. At 12,00 in the night, when Mr. Ranjan was making rounds on the
floors, Sanjeev hid in a corner and sprung at him and stabbed him in the stomach.

5. Mr. Ranjan was grievously hurt and Sanjeev was charged with grievous hurt. Sanjeev is
currently awaiting trial before the Sessions Court and a number of other workers are testifying
against him.

MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF THE CLAIMANT

-DRAWN AND FILED BY THE COUNSEL FOR THE CLAIMANT-
 Page |7

LABOUR LAW INTERNAL MOOT

STATEMENT OF ISSUES

I. WHETHER THE INCIDENT WAS AN “ACCIDENT” ARISING OUT OF THE EMPLOYEES

COMPENSATION ACT 1923?

II. WHETHER THE ACCIDENT AROSE OUT OF THE COURSE OF MR. RANJAN’S EMPLOYMENT

AND WHETHER HE SHOULD BE PAID COMPENSATION FOR THE LOSS?

MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF THE CLAIMANT

-DRAWN AND FILED BY THE COUNSEL FOR THE CLAIMANT-
 Page |8

LABOUR LAW INTERNAL MOOT

SUMMARY OF ARGUMENTS

I. WHETHER THE INCIDENT WAS AN “ACCIDENT” ARISING OUT OF THE EMPLOYEES

COMPENSATION ACT 1923?

The Counsel on behalf of the Claimant most respectfully submits that, the incident which

happened between the claimant and Sanjeev due to which he has suffered a loss comes under the

definition of ‘Accident’ of the provisions of the Employees Compensation Act, 1923 and

therefore is liable to get compensation on these very ground.

II. WHETHER THE ACCIDENT AROSE OUT OF THE COURSE OF MR. RANJAN’S EMPLOYMENT

AND WHETHER HE SHOULD BE PAID COMPENSATION FOR THE LOSS?

The Counsel on behalf of the Claimant most respectfully submits that, said accident arose out of

the course of employment of the claimant. Mr. Ranjan was stabbed because he was present there

as it was his duty and it happened during his course of employment therefore it is the duty of the

factory to give compensation to him for his loss.

MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF THE CLAIMANT

-DRAWN AND FILED BY THE COUNSEL FOR THE CLAIMANT-
 Page |9

LABOUR LAW INTERNAL MOOT

ARGUMENTS ADVANCED

I. WHETHER THE INCIDENT WAS AN “ACCIDENT” ARISING OUT OF THE EMPLOYEES

COMPENSATION ACT 1923?

The Learned counsel for the Claimant Submits that at the time of injury of claimant was an
accident for the purpose of compensation under the Employee’s Compensation Act, 1923. It was
submitted that the claimant found himself at a spot where he was assaulted and injured only
because of his employment with the appellant as the deceased was on duty.

The case of Nisbet v. Rayne and Burn 2 , is a leading case on this subject. A cashier was
travelling in a train with a large sum of money intended for payment to his employer's workmen.
He was robbed and murdered and the Court of appeal held the murder was an accident from the
point of view of the cashier and, therefore, it was an accident within the meaning of that term in
the Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923.

Section 3 of the Employees Compensation Act,1923 provides for Employer’s liability in cases
of personal injury. For an employer to be liable , the following conditions should be fulfilled-

1. The workman must have sustained personal injury

2. The personal injury must have been caused by an accident;

3. The accident may have arisen out of and in the course of employment; and

4. The personal injury caused to the workman must have resulted either in the total or
partial disablement of the workman for a period exceeding three days or it must have
resulted in the death of the workman

The compensation is payable in cases of personal injury caused to the workman by accident
arising out of and in the course of his employment. The expression “personal injury” has not
been defined. Personal injury under the Act means physiological injury. It is a bodily injury or a
2
Nisbet v. Rayne and Burn; 1910 (2) K.B.D. 689
MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF THE CLAIMANT
-DRAWN AND FILED BY THE COUNSEL FOR THE CLAIMANT-
 P a g e | 10

LABOUR LAW INTERNAL MOOT

physical injury to which would also include abnormal mental conditions. Personal injury
includes any harmful change in the body. It need not involve physical trauma, but may include
such injuries as disease, sunstroke, nervous collapse, traumatic neurosis, hysterical paralysis
and neurasthenia. 3 It may be external, or may be internal. In the case of chest pain arising
during duty alter remaining busy in strenuous work for many hours may be termed as an
accidental internal injury.

In State of Maharashtra v. Arti4, an employee killed his superior during an altercation in the
office. The application for compensation under the Workmen’s Compensation Act was allowed.
The Bombay High Court dismissed the appeal. Relevant portion of the said judgment is as
under :-

"17. Whether murder tantamounts to an accident: The term "accident" is not defined in the
Workmen,s Compensation Act. It is also not defined in the General Clauses Act. The learned
Judge has therefore, rightly considered the definition of an accident taking into account a
dictionary meaning of the term. Black‟s Law Dictionary defines "accident" under Workmen’s
Compensation Act as an unforeseen untoward incident which was not reasonably anticipated.
The deceased workman could not and did not contemplate his murder. It was an unforeseen and
untoward happening.”

In another case, of India News Chronicle Ltd v Luis Lazarus5 that the ‘injury’ in Section 3 of
the Workmen’s Compensation Act does not mean mere physical but may include a strain which
causes a chill. The death of the workman was due to personal injury. What is important is that
the result of injury must be such as to either kill a workman or partially or totally incapacitate
him from work for a period exceeding three days. Thus if an injury is sustained whether
physical or mental by accident arising out of and in the course of employment the workman
becomes entitled to compensation, provided the injury results in either death of the workman or
it results into his partial or total disablement for a period exceeding 3 days. If it results into
death of the workman the compensation becomes payable to his dependents.

3
LARSEN’S WORKMENS’ COMPENSATION LAW, 2009, VOL I, 613
4
State of Maharashtra v. Arti ; 2008 ACJ, 1406 (Bombay High Court)
5
India News Chronicle Ltd v Luis Lazarus ; AIR 1951 Punj. 102
MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF THE CLAIMANT
-DRAWN AND FILED BY THE COUNSEL FOR THE CLAIMANT-
 P a g e | 11

LABOUR LAW INTERNAL MOOT

Injury sustained by a workman must be a physical injury on account of accident. 6The word,
"accident" has not been defined in the statute but the judgment law by the time adequately
defined it. 'Accident' should be understood in the popular and ordinary sense as an unlooked for
mishap or an untoward event which is not expected or designed. For the purpose of law relating
to the compensation for personal injuries sustained by workman and the employer's liability in
that behalf includes any injury, which is not designed by the workman himself, and it is of no
consequence that the injury was designed and intended by the person inflicting the same. Self
inflicted injuries cannot be said to have been caused by an accident as the mishap or accident
has to be looked at from the point of view of the person, who suffers from it. Mere death in the
ordinary course by bodily ailment or for the reason attributable to himself, even in the course of
employment cannot attract the liability of the employer under section 3. The words, "injury and
accident" in Section 3 imply the existence of some external fact to cause apart from internal
ailment of the body.

In the case of Rita Devi v. New India Assurance Company, Ltd.7, dealt with a case in which
the driver of an auto rickshaw was murdered by his fare paying passengers. The passengers
intended to steal the auto rickshaw, for which they had to eliminate the driver. On these facts,
the Supreme Court held that the death of the driver was caused accidentally in the process of
committing theft of the auto rickshaw.

In another case of Smt. Satiya v. Sub-Divisional Officer, Public Works Department

Narsimhapur8, a chowkidar in the Public Works Department was murdered while on duty. One
of the questions that arose was whether his murder could be said to be an accident. Relying
upon Nisbet, it was held that the murder was an unlooked for mishap or untoward event which
was not expected or designed. The learned Judge held that word "accident" excludes the idea of
wilful and intentional act but as explained in Nisbet, "the phrase ought to be held to include
murder as it was an accidental happening so far as the workman was concerned.

6
Leela Devi v. Ramlal Rahu, 1990 LLR 213 (HP)
7
Rita Devi v. New India Assurance Company, Ltd (2000) 5 SCC 113
8
Smt. Satiya v. Sub-Divisional Officer, Public Works Department Narsimhapur; 1974 (2) L.L.N. 204
MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF THE CLAIMANT
-DRAWN AND FILED BY THE COUNSEL FOR THE CLAIMANT-
 P a g e | 12

LABOUR LAW INTERNAL MOOT

In Varkeyachan v. Thomman9, was a case in which an employee engaged to do odd jobs dies
as a result of stab injuries received while on duty. The Division Bench held the injury to be an
accident sustained by the deceased in the course of his employment.

In the case of Nisbet vs. Rayne & Burn10 it was held that:

“In this case, Nisbet was a cashier employed by the appellants and in the course of his duty he
was carrying large sum of money to pay the wages of the colliers and while travelling in the
train in the discharge of his duty, the bag of money was stolen and he was also killed. Though it
was a criminal act, the claim of compensation by the widow of Nisbet was allowed considering
that it was an accident arising out of and in the course of the employment.”

Similarly in the case of Board of Management of Trim Joint District School vs. Kelly11, John
Kelly was employed by the appellants as an Assistant Master of Trim School and he was the
Superintendent of the boys in the School and in the playground. The boys were angry with
Kelly because he had stopped them playing hurley, or hockey, in the school. On the evening of
February 12, 1912, the boys collected in a shed adjoining the school, armed with hurley sticks,
etc. and when Kelly came out from the School and went to the shed, the boys struck on him and
he received fracture injury on his head and consequently died. The claim of compensation was
allowed in the case of Kelly (supra) considering that the death was arisen out of and in the
course of employment.

The House of Lords in the aforesaid case held that the injuries caused by deliberate violence
which arose out of and during the course of employment also, amounted to 'accident'. The word
'accident' is construed in a wide canvass depending on the context keeping in mind the ordinary
and popular sense in which it is used and understood by the persons concerned.

The case of an injured and disabled person is, however, more pitiable and the feeling of hurt,
helplessness, despair and often destitution ensures every day. The support that is needed by a
severely handicapped person comes at an enormous price, physical, financial and emotional,
not only on the victim but even more so on his family and attendants and the stress saps their
energy and destroys their equanimity.

9
Varkeyachan v. Thomman ; 1979 (1) L.L.N. 477,
10
Nisbet vs. Rayne & Burn; (1910) 2 KB 689 CA
11
Joint District School vs. Kelly ; (1914) AC 667
MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF THE CLAIMANT
-DRAWN AND FILED BY THE COUNSEL FOR THE CLAIMANT-
 P a g e | 13

LABOUR LAW INTERNAL MOOT

The counsel therefore submits that the present incident that happened in this case was an
unfortunate and unforeseen event. There is a causal connection between the employment and
the accidental murder as the deceased was called by the appellant for an urgent work in the
factory, whereupon the deceased came to the factory, worked there and was murdered
during the course of his employment. But for his employment, the claimant would not have
been at the place of accident, where he was at the time he was killed. Thus, it is held that the
accidental murder occurred in the course of the employment of the claimant with the
appellant.12

12M/S Star Press vs Meena Devi ; C.M. Appl. No. 2810/2017 (Delhi High Court)
MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF THE CLAIMANT
-DRAWN AND FILED BY THE COUNSEL FOR THE CLAIMANT-
 P a g e | 14

LABOUR LAW INTERNAL MOOT

II. WHETHER THE ACCIDENT AROSE OUT OF THE COURSE OF MR. RANJAN’S EMPLOYMENT

AND WHETHER HE SHOULD BE PAID COMPENSATION FOR THE LOSS?

The counsel on behalf of the Claimant most humbly submits that, the Accident arose out of and
during the course of employment of the Mr. Ranjan who was an employee and was called after
duty hours to do some emergent work in the Respondent’s factory where he was grievously hurt.
It was submitted that the claimant found himself at a spot where he was assaulted and murdered
only because of his employment with the respondent as the claimant was on duty.

It is most humbly submitted that, Injury suffered in the workplace has to be compensated for by
the employer. That is the simple principle law relating to workmen’s compensation13.To make
sure that there is no foul play by those who have resources and influence, the law has made
elaborate provisions.Employees’ Compensation Act was enacted in 1923. The Act provides for
compensation to certain classes of workmen by their employers for the injuries which are
suffered by the workmen as a result of an accident during the course of employment.

Section 314 of the said Act states that:

Employer's liability for compensation.- (1) If personal injury is caused to a *[employee] by

accident arising out of and in the course of his employment, his employer shall be liable to pay
compensation in accordance with the provisions of this Chapter: Provided that the employer
shall not be so liable --

(a) in respect of any injury which does not result in the total or partial disablement of the
*[employee] for a period exceeding three days;

(b) in respect of any injury, not resulting in death or permanent total disablement caused by an
accident which is directly attributable to— (i) the *[employee] having been at the time thereof
under the influence of drink or drugs, or (ii) the wilful disobedience of the *[employee] to an
order expressly given, or to a rule expressly framed, for the purpose of securing the safety of
*[employees], or (iii) the wilful removal or disregard by the *[employee] of any safety guard or

13
Workmen Compensation Act
14
Employees Compensation Act 1923.
MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF THE CLAIMANT
-DRAWN AND FILED BY THE COUNSEL FOR THE CLAIMANT-
 P a g e | 15

LABOUR LAW INTERNAL MOOT

other device which he knew to have been provided for the purpose of securing the safety of
*[employee],

(c) Omitted by Act 5 of 1929.

In order to attract section 3 (1) of the Act, following three conditions must be fulfilled:

(a) personal injury;

(b) accident; and

(c) arising out of and in the course of employment.15

In order to succeed in an application for getting compensation under section 3 of the Act the
following points are required to be established:

(1) that the accident must arise out of and in the course of the workman‘s employment;

(2) there must be causal connection between the injury and the accident and the work done in the
course of the employment;

(3) the workman has to say that while doing a part of his duty or incidental thereto it has resulted
into an accident. It is necessary that the workman must be actually working at the time of the
injury or the accident. Therefore, the three factors, that there must be injury, which must be
caused in an accident, it must be caused in the course of and out of the employment must be
established.16

In the case of Bhagubai v. Central Railway17 A.I.R. 1955 (Bombay High Court), the deceased
was stabbed to death while he was on his way to join duty. It was not disputed that the death was
a result of an accident or that it arose in the course of his employment. The dispute was whether
it arose out of the employment of the deceased. The Division Bench held at page 404 as follows:

15
Kalayni P. v. Divisional Manager, Southern Railway (Personal Branch), Divisional Office, Madras;, 2004 LLR
207 (Mad HC): 2004 1 LLJ 49.
16
Branch Manager, New India Assurance Co. Ltd. v. Siddappa, Major;, 2004 LLR 731 (Kant HC).
17
Bhagubai v. Central Railway; A.I.R. 1955 Bom. 105
MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF THE CLAIMANT
-DRAWN AND FILED BY THE COUNSEL FOR THE CLAIMANT-
 P a g e | 16

LABOUR LAW INTERNAL MOOT

"Now, it is clear that there must be a causal connection between the accident and the
employment in order that the Court can say that the accident arose out of the employment of the
deceased. It is equally clear that the cause contemplated is the proximate cause and not any
remote cause. The authorities have clearly laid down that if the employee in the course of his
employment has to be in a particular place and by reason of his being in that particular place he
has to face a peril and the accident is caused by reason of that peril which he has to face, then a
causal connection is established between the accident and the employment. It is now well settled
that the fact that the employee shares that peril with other members of the public is an irrelevant
consideration. It is true that the peril which he faces must not be something personal to him; the
peril must be incidental to his employment. It is also clear that he must not by his own act add to
the peril or extend the peril. But if the peril which he faces has nothing to do with his own action
or his own conduct, but it is a peril which would have been faced by any other employee or any
other member of the public, then if the accident arises out of such peril, a causal connection is
established between the employment and the accident.

In this particular case what is established is that the employee while in the course of his
employment found himself in a spot where he was assaulted and stabbed.

The expression ―arising out of employment‖ means that there must be casual relationship
between the accident and the employment. If the accident has occurred on account of ihe risk
which is an incident of employment, it has to be held that the accident has arisen out of the
employment.18

The words ―out of employment‖ is not limited to mere nature of the employment, but it (arising
out of employment) applies to its nature, its conditions and obligations and its incidents. An
accident which occurs on account of a risk, which is an incident of employment, then the claim
for compensation can succeed provided the workman has not exposed himself to an added peril
by his own imprudent act.19

18
Oriental Insurance Co. Lid. v. Nanguli Singh,; 1995 LLJ HC ORS (298).
19
Executive Engineer 19th Div. R.C.P., Bikancr v. Heeraram,; 1982 (44) RR 179 Raj: 1980 Raj LW 412
MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF THE CLAIMANT
-DRAWN AND FILED BY THE COUNSEL FOR THE CLAIMANT-
 P a g e | 17

LABOUR LAW INTERNAL MOOT

In another case of Varkeyachan v. Thomman20 1979, was a case in which an employee engaged
to do odd jobs dies as a result of stab injuries received while on duty. The Division Bench held
the injury to be an accident sustained by the deceased in the course of his employment.

It is humbly submitted that, the question that arose for consideration in United India Insurance
Company Ltd. v. Philo21 1996 (3) , was whether the killing of a workman while he was in the
course of his employment, by an unknown person, can be considered as death caused as a result
of an accident arising out of his employment? In this case the deceased was the driver of a taxi.
He had taken some tourist out of town. He did not return from the tour and it was reported that
he was killed and somebody stole the taxi. The Division Bench answered the question in the
affirmative and held in Paras. 7 and 8 of the report:

"7.... But for the engagement as the driver of the taxi, the deceased would not have been in the
place and in the situation where he was at the time when he was killed. The casual connection is
complete and we have no doubt, in our mind to hold that the accident which has resulted in the
death of the workman has arisen out of the employment.

Further in the case of Parle Products, Ltd. v. Subir Mukherjee 200122 was a case in which an
employee was travelling from Calcutta to Puri by train to attend an official conference. On the
way, he was assaulted and thrown out of the Railway compartment. He sustained multiple
injuries including a head injury and became permanently physically disabled. The Division
Bench held that there had been an accident, and that the accident had a causal connection with
the employment inasmuch as the workman was travelling in the train to attend a conference
organized by the employer in terms of a direction issued in that regard to him. Thus, it was held
that the accident occurred in the course of his employment.

In Rita Devi v. New India Assurance Co. Ltd., 200023 , the Apex Court has held thus…

In view of the aforesaid decision, we find that deceased was performing duty. There was close
nexus of murder and performance of his duty in course of employment. He died in the course of

20
Varkeyachan v. Thomman 1979 (1) L.L.N. 477
21
United India Insurance Company Ltd. v. Philo 1996 (3) L.L.N. 116
22
Parle Products, Ltd. v. Subir Mukherjee 2001 (I) L.L.J 964.
23
Rita Devi v. New India Assurance Co. Ltd 2000 ACJ 801 (SC)
MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF THE CLAIMANT
-DRAWN AND FILED BY THE COUNSEL FOR THE CLAIMANT-
 P a g e | 18

LABOUR LAW INTERNAL MOOT

employment. Thus, we find that order passed by the Commissioner for Workmen's Compensation
awarding compensation is proper."

The counsel therefore submits that, there is a causal connection between the employment and the
accidental incident as the claimant was called by the respondent for an urgent work in the
factory, whereupon the claimant came to the factory, worked there and was stabbed during the
course of his employment. But for his employment, the claimant would not have been at the
place of accident, where he was at the time he was stabbed. Thus, it is held that the accident
occurred in the course of the employment of the claimant and therefore he should be paid
compensation for the same.

MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF THE CLAIMANT

-DRAWN AND FILED BY THE COUNSEL FOR THE CLAIMANT-
 P a g e | 19

LABOUR LAW INTERNAL MOOT

PRAYER

Therefore, in the light of issues involved, arguments advanced, reasons given and the
Authorities cited, this Hon’ble Court may be pleased:

1. To hold the Factory liable for the injuries caused to the claimant
2. To pay the amount of compensation to Claimant according to the provisions of the act
3. Pass any other order which may deem fit

Any other and further relief which this Hon’ble Court may be pleased to grant in the interests
of Justice and Equity. All of which is respectfully submitted.

For This Act of Kindness, the Respondents Shall Duty Bound Forever Pray.

Date:

Place:
Sd/-

(Counsels for the Claimants)

MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF THE CLAIMANT

-DRAWN AND FILED BY THE COUNSEL FOR THE CLAIMANT-