You are on page 1of 22


It considers compensation payable by an employer to his workmen in case of an accident as a measure of relief and social security To get compensation irrespective of his negligence. It also lays down various amount payable in case of an accident depending upon the type and extent of injury.

Workman means any person other than a person whose employment is of a casual nature and who is employed otherwise then for the purposes of the employers trade or business.



Ways open to workmen for claiming compensation

Injured workmen may either file a civil suit for damages against the employer or claim compensation under the workmens compensation act,1923. Sec.3(5) provides that no claim foe compensation can be made under the Act if the workmen has failed a civil suit. If any court of law if; (1)He has field a claim under the workmens compensation act,1923, or

(2) There is an agreement between the workmen and his employer providing for the payment of compensation according to the provision of the workmens compensation Act, 1923. A civil suit is a risky and costly affair. A claim under the workmens compensation Act,1923 is safe and less costly. It extends to the whole of India.

Amount of compensation
The amount of compensation payable to a workman depends on : 1)The nature of injury 2)The monthly wages of workman concerned According to new sec (as substituted) by the amendment act 1984 provided compensation for:

1)death 2)permanent disablement 3)total disablement 4)temporary disablement whether total of partial

Sec.2 gives the definitions of the terms used in the act. COMMISSIONER(Sec.2(1)(b)) means a commissioner foe workmens compensation appointed under sec.20. DEPENDENT(Sec.2(1)(d)) defines the term dependent by giving a long list of persons covered by the term dependent. In ordinary usage, a person who depends upon another for his livelihood.

EMPLOYER(Sec.2(1)(e)) includesi. Any body of persons whether incorporated or not; ii. Any managing agent of an employer; and iii. The legal representative of a deceased employer.

DISABLEMENT: it mean loss of capacity to work or move. it may result in loss or reduction of his earning capacity PARTIAL DISABLEMENT: It means any disablement as reduces the earning capacity of a workman as result of some accident. It may be temporary or permanent


CASE DATE: 9TH FEB,1996 PLACE: MADHYA PRADESH FACTS: The claimant(respondent 1) was employed as a truck cleaner/conductor owned by respondent 2 The truck was insured

The truck met with an accident on June 22,1992 The truck conductor(r1) received multiple injuries as a result of which leg of the conductor was amputed below the knee The commissioner after recording the evidence determined the loss of earning capacity at 50% as respondent was not able to perform his duties and he was permanently disabled.

The truck conductor CLAIMED a compensation of Rs. 1,05,895-/ with interest at the rate of 12% from the date of accident.


The question arised in the court whether he will receive the amount along with interest which he claimed? And so he filed a case The only contention raised in this appeal is that nature of injury was described in serial no. 20 of part 2 of schedule of the act

According to the act in a manner prescribed in schedule 6 of the act, if 50% loss of earning capacity arises ,the amount of not more than Rs. 62000-/ can be awarded with respect to injury(whether partial or permanent disablement) This amount is statutorily fixed by legislature and hence the claim awarded could not exceed Rs 62000/-


The Maternity Benefit Act, 1961

amendment 1988 Scope and coverage: Applicability:- factory,mine,plt^,shops 10 or more employees eligible goverment ESI act employee Prohibition of employment a) Employer Maternity benefit

b) employee b) Avg daily wage

a) Right to payment

Conditions for payment:80 days/12 mths Max 12 weeks Medical bonus Death Notice for claim Mode of payment Dismissal during absence

Leave and nursing breaks

Miscarriage Other leave Nursing breaks

Powers and duties Direct payment Appeal

Penalty and offences a) contravention of act by employer b) obstructing inspector

CASE NO.: Special Leave Petition (civil) 12797 of 1998 DATE OF JUDGMENT: 08/03/2000
S. SAGHIR AHMAD, J. Female workers (muster roll), engaged by the Municipal Corporation of Delhi,raised a demand for grant of maternity leave which was made available only to regular female workers but was denied to them on the ground that there services were not regularised and, therefore, they were not entitled to any maternity leave. Their case was espoused by the Delhi Municipal Workers Union "Whether the female workers working on Muster Roll should be given any maternity benefit? The Union filed a statement of claim in which it was stated that Municipal Corporation of Delhi employs a large number of persons including female workers on muster roll and they are made to work in that capacity for years together though they are recruited against the work of perennial nature. It was further stated that the nature of duties and responsibilities performed and undertaken by the muster roll employees are the same as those of the regular employees.

The women employed on muster roll, which have been working with the Municipal Corporation of Delhi for years together, have to work very hard in construction projects and maintenance of roads including the work of digging trenches etc. but the Corporation does not grant any maternity benefit to female workers who are required to work even during the period of mature pregnancy or soon after the delivery of child. It was pleaded that the female workers required the same maternity benefits as were enjoyed by regular female workers under the Maternity Benefit Act, 1961. The denial of these benefits exhibits a negative attitude of the Corporation in respect of a humane problem. The Corporation in their written statement, filed before the Industrial Tribunal, pleaded that the provisions under the Maternity Benefit Act, 1961 or Central Civil Services (Leave) Rules were not applicable to the female workers, engaged on muster roll, as they were all engaged only on daily wages. It was also contended that they were not entitled to any benefit under the Employees' State Insurance Act, 1948. It was for these reasons that the Corporation contended that the demand of the female workers (muster roll) for grant of maternity leave was liable to be rejected.

The Tribunal, by its Award dated 2nd of April, 1996, allowed the claim of the female workers (muster roll) and directed the Corporation to extend the benefits under the Maternity Benefit Act, 1961 to muster roll female workers who were in the continuous service of the Corporation for three years or more. The Corporation challenged this judgment in a Writ Petition before the Delhi High Court which was dismissed by the Single Judge on January 7, 1997. The Letters Patent Appeal (LPA No. 64 of 1998), filed thereafter by the Corpo-ration was dismissed by the Division Bench on March 9, 1998 on the ground of delay.