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

Report No. 62

3.3. Possible justification for the present rule.-

What then is the rational for barring compensation in the situation referred to above? Perhaps one possible justification would be that since the accident was directly attributable to the physical condition of the workman, the employer should not be made liable to compensation even though the accident arose out of and in the course of the employment. In our view, however, the fact that the workman by his (drunk or drugged) condition contributed to the accident, should not justify the exclusion of compensation at the present day. Social justice requires that he should be compensated.

3.4. Another possible justification for the present rule could be that the workman has no business to get drunk while discharging his duties. This also should hardly suffice to deprive him of compensation once he is injured. For fatal injuries, the legislature has already taken a liberal attitude (so that the workman's fault may not be visited on his dependants). The same approach should be extended to non-fatal injuries.

3.5. and 3.6. Recommendation-3(1) proviso (b)(i).-

In view of what is stated above, we recommend that section 3(1), proviso (b)(i), should be deleted.

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 Inc