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

Report No. 62

10.31. Ambiguity in item 2.- There is also an ambiguity in this item. If is quoted below:-

"(ii) employed, otherwise than in a clerical capacity, in any premises wherein or within the precincts whereof a manufacturing process as defined in clause (k) of section 2 of the Factories Act, 1948, is being carried on, or in any kind of work whatsoever incidental to or connected with any such manufacturing process or with the article made, whether or not employment in any such work is within such premises or precincts and steam, water or other mechanical power or electrical power is used."

10.32. Do the words "and steam, water or other mechanical power or electrical power is used govern both the parts of the item, (premises and work), or do they govern only the second? Apparently, both parts are intended to be covered, the hazard being constituted by the use of power in either case. This could be made clear.

10.33. It is also desirable to add nuclear or chemical energy in this item1.

1. Compare item 19 as proposed to be revised, para. 10.54, infra.

10.34. In the first part of item 2, the exception regarding clerical employment should be removed, as there is no reason why clerks should be excluded1 in this case, as the hazard constituted by the premises is shared by all persons. In the second half of the item also, it should be removed, since the requirement is that the work must involve power. We propose accordingly a re-draft in respect of this item.

1. See discussion as to item 1, para. 10.27, supra.

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