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

Report No. 62

10.25. Clerical employment-various items discussed.-

The exclusion of persons employed in a clerical capacity is of interest. In this connection, it may be noted that there are, in the Second Schedule, several items which exclude persons working in a clerical capacity.1 The formula varies. First, in some of the entries, the substantive entry speaks of a person employed "in connection with" the specified operation2, and persons working in a clerical capacity are excluded. Secondly, in some of the items, the formula employed in the main entry is "a person employed in" (or "on") certain premises, and a geographical contiguity is, therefore, required3. Lastly, in some of the items, no geographical contiguity is required4, but, nevertheless persons working in a clerical capacity are excluded.

1. Items 1, 2, 5, 10, 14, 18, 19 and 30.

2. Items 1, 5 and 14.

3. Items 2 and 18.

4. Items 10, 19 and 30.

10.26. Items in the first category1, referred to above2, exclude persons acting in a clerical capacity, for the reason that otherwise the wide wording "in connection with", would cover persons not on the premises, and not directly involved in the hazardous operation.

1. Items 1, 5 and 14.

2 . Para. 10.25, supra.

10.27. As regards items in the second category1, which require a geographical contiguity, there is, in our view, a case for removing the exception for persons2 acting in a clerical capacity3 in item 3, but not in item 18 where the area covered is very large, being an "estate".

The position under item 2 is not identical with the first category, since the requirement of contiguity itself restricts the entry.

1. Items 2 and 18.

2. To indicate precisely the amendment required, a re-draft is given at the end of this Chapter.

3. See recommendation in para. 10.34, infra.

10.28. As regards items in the third category, the exclusion of persons1 working in a clerical capacity is, strictly speaking, unnecessary, because it is difficult to see how a clerk can be employed, "in the construction" of an aerial ropeway2,-as is assumed in item 10. However, perhaps, for abundant caution, the exception seems to have been inserted; and its removal at this stage might be unwise, as it might be construed as extending the benefit of the main provision to persons acting in a clerical capacity, even though they are remote from the place where the hazardous work is carried on.

1. Para. 10.25.

2. Item 10.

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