AdvocateKhoj
Login : Advocate | Client
Home Post Your Case My Account Law College Law Library
    

Report No. 62

3.46. Too many provisions crowded together.-

Now the first difficulty that one experiences when reading the sub-sections concerning diseases is in the nature of a strain caused by too many provisions crowded together as sub¬sections. The topic of disease deserves at least one separate section for itself, so as to relieve the strain. Secondly, the first proviso to section 3(2), (which is apparently in the form of a proviso) really adds to the main provision regarding employments in Part C, so far as the requirement of continuous minimum period is concerned.

It enacts a substantive provision having an importance of its own. Broadly stated, its effect is that irrespective of the length of the continuous period of service, if (a) a workman, while in the service of one or more employers in the employment in Part C, contracts the peculiar occupational disease, and (b) the disease has arisen out of and in the course of the employment, then the contraction of such disease 'shall be deemed to be an injury by accident' within the meaning of the section.

This "deeming" is not subject to proof to the contrary. It is desirable that the first proviso to sub-section (2) should appear as a substantive provision (for employments in Part C), followed by the other substantive provision in the main sub-section (for employments in Part C). The second proviso to sub-section (2) is grammatically inaccurate though its sense is fairly clear. It applies to employments in Part B or in Part C and provides for cases where the contraction of the disease takes place after cessation of the employment. Such a special provision is necessary apparently because the main sub-section-section 3(2)-speaks of "whilst in service".



Workmens Compensation Act, 1923 Back




Client Area | Advocate Area | Blogs | About Us | User Agreement | Privacy Policy | Advertise | Media Coverage | Contact Us | Site Map
powered and driven by neosys