Employer: An employer is the authority which employs and pays employees for their labour.

It
may be an individual person or it may be a company representing many people. Within the
relationship between employers and their employees, the employer is the party which will
typically define the terms of employment and write the contract. They are then obligated to
provide the agreed-upon compensation to workers for any labour they perform that is contained
within the terms of their contract. An employer is also the party legally liable for work conditions,
maintaining labour laws and handling any legal action an employee may pursue.

Speaking in legal terms section 2(g) of Industrial disputes act deals with the term employer as:

1. About an industry carried on by or under the authority of any department of the Central or
State Government, the authority prescribed in this behalf, where no authority is prescribed, the
head of department;

2. About an industry carried on by or on behalf of a local authority, the chief executive officer of
that authority.

Employment injury: means a personal injury to an employee caused by accident or an

occupational disease arising out of and in the course of his employment being an insurable
employment. Whether the accident occurs or the occupational disease is contracted within or
outside the territorial limits of India.

Under the Workmen’ Compensation Act 1923, section 3 of the act provides for the liability of an
employer to pay compensation to the employee in case:

 If personal injury is caused to a workman by accident, arising out of and in course of his
employment, the employer shall be liable to pay compensation under the provisions of
Chapter 2 of the Act.

There are three components in the definition which are –

(1) Personal injury: The word ‘personal injury’ being wider than bodily injury also includes all
physical injuries which may be caused by an accident arising out of and in the course of
employment. It also includes all mental strains or mental tension or mental illness or
psychological diseases, provided such mental conditions have arisen by accidents arising out of
and in the course of employment. Similarly, a death from heat stroke has also been held to be
personal injury entitling the dependant to compensation.4 The expression ‘personal injury’ does
not only mean physical injury but it may include a mental strain or mental imbalance.

(2) 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 Section3 imply the existence of some external fact to cause apart from
internal ailment of the body.

(3) Arising out of and in the course of the employment: Arising out of and in the course of
employment refers to the activities by an employee as part and during the course of employment.
It includes employer-required or supplied travel to and from a remote job site; activities
performed at the direction or under the control of the employer; and employer-sanctioned
activities at employer-provided facilities. It does not include recreational league activities
sponsored by the employer, unless participation is required as a condition of employment, and
activities of a personal nature away from employer-provided facilities.

In Ravuri Kotayya v. Dasari Nagavardhanamma

Andhra Pradesh High Court has laid down the test by which is accident has arisen out of and in
the course of employment can be established:

 The workman was employed on or performing the duties at the time of accident. The
accident occurred at or about the place where he was performing these duties or where
the performance of the duties required him to be present.

 That the immediate act which led to or resulted in the accident has some form of casual
relation with the performance of these duties, and such casual connection could be held
to exist if the immediate act which led to the accident is not so remote from the sphere of
his duties or the performance thereof, as to be regarded as something foreign to them.

 There are certain exception to the above rule like the accident involve some risk common
to general public and if he by his own act expose himself to some added peril and has
accident.

Based on various cases the test to determine whether the accident has arisen out of and in
course of employment includes:

 That employee was performing his duties or his tasks assigned to him during his
employment at the time of accident.

 Accident occurred at or about the place where he was performing his duties.

 The immediate act which caused the accident had some form of casual relation with the
performance of these duties.
Section 3 (1) says: the liability to pay compensation is dependent upon the following conditions

 Injury caused to a workman

 Injury is caused by an accident
 Accident occurred during the course of employment
 Injuries caused due the accident are of severe nature to result in death or total/partial
disability exceeding 3 days

Employer is NOT Liable to Pay Compensation

 When the injury does not result in disablement for a period not exceeding 3 days.
 When the injury not resulting in death or permanent total disability is due to any of the
following reasons: The employee was at the time of the accident, under the influence of
drink or drugs, or
 An employee wilfully disobeyed an order expressly given or a rule expressly framed for
the purpose of securing the safety of workers, or
 The employee wilfully disregards or removes any safety guards or safety devices which
he knew to have been provided for the safety of the employee.

Doctrine of Notional Extension

The principal behind compensation to the injured worker under the Workmen’s Compensation
Act, 1923 is considered according to the Doctrine of Notional Extension. This doctrine sheds light
on the course of employment of a worker.

Generally there is no problem in detecting that the accident occurred in the course of
employment when a workman is injured in the working place and in the working hour and doing
his duty. The problem arises when these elements do not coincide together. But a workman if
injured just near the work premises or just before joining the work or in the way to work problem
arises. To address this kind of problem and giving some kind of relief to the workmen the theory
of notional extension evolved.

As a rule, the employment of a workman does not commence until he has reached the place of
employment and does not continue when he has left the place of employment, the journey to and
from the place of employment being excluded.

subject to the theory of notional extension of the employer’s premises so as to include an area
which the workman passes and re-passes in going to and in leaving the actual place of work.
There may be some reasonable extension in both time and place and a workman may be
regarded as in the course of his employment even though he had not reached or had left his
employer’s premises.

There may be some reasonable extension in both time and place and a workman may be
regarded as in the course of his employment even though he had not reached or had left his
employer's premises. The facts and circumstances of each case will have to be examined very
carefully in order to determine whether the accident arose out of and in the course of the
employment of a workman, keeping in view at all times this theory of notional extension.”

Thus doctrine of notional extension makes employer liable to compensate provided injury caused
by an accident must have arisen during the course of employment, in other words the accident
must take place at a place and time when an employee is doing his/her job.
According to this theory, the employer is liable in certain circumstances for the injury caused to
his workers even when he/she is somewhere else from the place of duty at the time of accident.
The doctrine could not be placed in a strait jacket; it was merely a matter of sound common
sense as to when and where and to what extent this doctrine could be applied.

Illustrations

 An employee of steel company uses transport provided by his employer for daily
commutation from his residence to his place of employment. He suffered a severe injury
one day on way to his place employment as the transport was involved in an accident.
The employer has the liability to compensate and pay for his medical expenses because
accident occurred on the way while in transport, this will be considered to be an
extension of employer’s premises and done in the course of employment.

 A factory worker suffered from a heart attack during work in the factory. While leaving for
home, he profusely sweated and died of heart failure. The stress and strain of work were
the main factors that accelerated the declining health of worker and eventually his death.
It was held that the accident arose out of and in the course of employment.

 A jute mill worker was stabbed in communal riot while he was returning home after the
night shift and died just a short distance from the mill. It was held that the death arose out
of and in the course of employment.

The above examples signify the liability of employer to pay the compensation to employees
regarding cases which comes under the purview of the doctrine of notional extension.

CASE LAW

 Expansion of preview of service contract

The question of extent of employer’s liability in case of an injury caused by accident taking place
outside the normal place of employment was discussed in a leading case of

St Helens Colliery Co. ltd v. Hewlston

In this case an employee working in the colliery was injured while travelling in a special collier’s
train. The railway company by an agreement with the colliery company agreed to arrange for
such a special train running between the colliery and the place of residence of the employees.
Each employee was provided with a pass and the amount of fare was deducted from his wages.
It was held that the injury did not arise in the course of employment within the meaning of the
English Employee’s Compensation Act, 1906 for the following reasons:

 There was no obligation on the employees to use the train. The employees had a right to
travel by such train but were not bound to travel by such train. They could have travelled
by any other alternative means. Any employee of colliery was free to avail of the privilege
or not. Had he been bound by the contract of his service to travel by such train, he would
have been in the course of employment.

 if the physical features of the locality had been such that the means of transit offered by
the employer would have been the only means of transit to transport the employee to his
work, there may in the employee’s contract of service be implied a term that there was an
 obligation on the employer to provide such means and a reciprocal obligation on the
employee to avail himself of them.

 An employee in a colliery is not in the course of his employment, when he is riding in a

vehicle provided by his employer unless, by the terms of his contact, he is bound to travel
in that vehicle.

 This judgement provided a wider import to preview of social contract.

Union of India v. Mrs. Noor Jahan

A railway gang man was ordered by his employer to go to another place for cleaning and in the
way from one place to another accident happened. Justice Sukla observed that the accident has
occurred in the duty hour and when he was going to do his duty on behalf of his employer and he
concluded that the accident has occurred in the course of his employment.

 The meaning of duty expanded

In order to expand the scope of this doctrine the court gave a wider meaning to “duty” and
devised a test to determine the same and the test was confirmed in the following the case

In Weaver v. Tredegar Iron Coal Co

 House of Lords after examining a large number of authorities given a wider meaning of
“duty” but did not negated the duty test. In this case it was said that there can be no
doubt that the course of employment cannot be limited to the time or place of the specific
work which the workman is employed to do.

 It does not necessarily end when the “‘down tools” signal is given, or when the actual
workshop where he is working is left. In other words, the employment may run on its
course by its own momentum beyond the actual stopping place.

 There may be some reasonable extension in both time and space.it was further said that
if an accident occurs while coming to the workplace or leaving the place can be out of
and in the course of employment if he is bound by the way he proceed under the terms of
the contract of service express or implied. Here duty test was confirmed.

 Realization of social view point

In later cases the court took more liberate stand in expanding the definition of notional extension
realizing the social view point and objective of the act. The employee died on the way towards
his workplace because of communal riot. It was argued by the appellant that the person died
before the commencement of his work and outside the work place. There is no connection
between the accident and the employment. High court of Madras has negated all this argument
and allowed the compensation.
In Superintending Engineer, T.N.S.E.B v. Sankupathy (T.M.T.)

 An Ardhanari was died when he was coming to his work under appellant. Court said that
“Since the Act is welfare legislation, it is expected that the provisions would receive
liberal interpretation so as to advance the object and purpose of the Act.”

 The court also observe that “in the course of employment” talks about the point of time
and place of accident and “out of employment” talks about a causal connection between
the accident and the employment and which according to the court is very narrow
interpretation giving the modern industrial set up.

So doctrine of notional extension should be used and even if the workman did not reach the
place of work the workmen should get compensation for accident.

EXCEPTION

There are some situations where this doctrine does not apply. When a workman is on the public
road or public place and not there for fulfilling the obligation and his work does not make
necessary to be there. The proximity of the work premises and spot of accident become
immaterial. The notional extension of the place of work cease when workman comes to a public
road.

In Saurashtra Salt Manufacturing Co. v. Valu Raja

It was held

“It is well settled that when a workman is on a public road or a public place or on a public
transport he is there as any other member of the public and is not there in the course of his
employment unless the very nature of his employment makes it necessary for him to be there. A
workman is not in the course of his employment from the moment he leaves his home and is on
his way to his work. He certainly is in the course of his employment if he reaches the place of
work or a point or an area which comes within the theory of notional extension, outside of which
the employer is not liable to pay compensation for any accident happening to him.”

DOCTRINE OF ADDED PERIL

This doctrine is contrary to the doctrine of notion extension. While the doctrine of notional
extension benefits to the employee, the doctrine of added peril is for the benefit to the employer.
It contemplates that if a workman while doing his masters work undertakes to do something
which he is not ordinarily called upon to do and which involves extra danger he cannot hold his
master liable for the risk arising there from.

The doctrine of added peril is dis-entitled an injured worker from compensation on the ground
that he had taken a greater risk than he had been required by his employer to assume.
Therefore, where the injury is not caused to workman by an accident arising out of and in the
course of employment, he/she is not entitled to get any benefit or compensation under the
Employee‘s State Insurance Act, 1948 and the Workmen‘s Compensation Act, 1923.
ShriSankarKal, S/o Late Narayan Kal. V Sri Sunil Kumar Saha, S/O Late Nishi KantaSaha

 In this case, the deceased was employed as a Helper-cum cleaner five months before his
death. The deceased had consumed excessive quantity of alcohol due to which he died
although there was no accident that had taken place. Appellant, who was the brother of
the deceased filed application before Commissioner for granting him adequate
compensation for death of his brother who died in course of his employment. The
doctrine of added peril may be relevant for work undertakes to do something, which he is
not ordinarily called upon to do and it involves extra danger, he cannot hold his master
liable for the risks arising there-from. The doctrine, therefore, comes into play when the
workman is, at the time of meeting the accident, performing his duty
.
 It appeared that deceased voluntarily consumed heavy quantity of ethyl alcohol as result
of which he died due to myocardial heart failure. Therefore doctrine of added peril was
not applicable to case of deceased. Further a person could not be permitted to take
advantage of his own wrong; he would not be allowed to found a claim upon his own
iniquity. In the case at hand, the deceased voluntarily consumed heavy quantity of ethyl
alcohol as a result of which he died due to myocardial heart failure.

 The doctrine of added peril, therefore, is applicable to the case of the deceased. Further,
the maxim "Nemo ex proprio dolo Consequitur actionem", which means that a person
cannot be permitted to take advantage of his own wrong, he will not be allowed to found
a claim upon his own iniquity. The maxim is applicable in the case of the deceased
workman. Maxim was applicable in case of deceased workman. Therefore Appeal was
found without merit and hence dismissed.

CONCLUSION

The doctrine of notional extension of employer’s premises can be encapsulated into following
points

 The obligation must be upon employer to provide transport to and from place of work;
such obligation must be expressed or implied. The corresponding duty is on the
employee to avail that transportation service.

 The transport facility must not only be in nature of a concession or privilege which the
employees are free to avail or not.

 In case the means of transport provided by the employer is not only the most convenient
means but also the only means to reach the place of work, there would be deemed to be
an implied obligation on employer to provide transportation service and reciprocal
obligation on employee to avail it.

 If accident occurred on public road, the liability to pay compensation to employee arises
only when employment or his job required him to be there, the distance of the place of
accident from place of work is immaterial in such cases.