Hi, If an employee met with an accident while coming to the office, how many complementary leaves should be provided
From India, Gwalior
From India, Gwalior
Hi,
If the employee met with an accident outside the office, based on the severity of the injury and also based on the requirement of the employee, employee can be allowed to avail leave which can be adjusted from his/her leave credit. There is no need for complementary leaves or special leave.
From India, Madras
919If the employee met with an accident outside the office, based on the severity of the injury and also based on the requirement of the employee, employee can be allowed to avail leave which can be adjusted from his/her leave credit. There is no need for complementary leaves or special leave.
From India, Madras
If an employee met with an accident while coming to the office, it falls under Doctrine of Notional Extension.
Doctrine of Notional Extension is one of the eminent features of Employees Compensation Act, 1923. According to the doctrine of notional extension compensation to be provided to the injured worker under Employees State Insurance Act, 1948 and Workmen’s Compensation Act, 1923.
The doctrine of notional extension mentioned under Section 3 of the Employees Compensation Act, 1923 says that it is the legal obligation of an employer to provide damages to their employees, their family members in situations where injury are inflicted during working hours at the workplace.
Section 3 of the Employees Compensation Act, 1923, states about the employer’s liability for compensation and the doctrine of notional extension has evolved from this section only.
Section 3(1) of the said Act sates that “if personal injury is caused to an employee by accident arising out of and in the course of his employment: his employer shall be liable to pay compensation in accordance with the Chapter II of Employees Compensation Act, 1923.
Meaning of arising out of employment and in the course of his employment
When the accident occurs in premises of the employer during working hours at any time when the workmen is at work, it may be possible to say that the accident had took place within the sphere of his employment and therefore, it is easy to declare that the accident has been out of and in the course of employment. But main problem arises when an accident has taken place on a public road in the absence of any fact showing that it is the nature workmen’s employment which required or bring the worker on the accident spot. Because everyone has right to walk on public road and liability cannot be purely saddled on the employer that the accident has occurred, when the employee was coming to the place of employment. So, as a general rule the employment of workman does not start until he has reached the place of his employment and does not continue with him when he left for his home. Unless it is proved that the nature of workmen employment was such that requires him to be there.
Now the doctrine of notional extension come in the picture which include both in time and place and a workman may be regarded as in the course of his employment whether he has not reached or has left the premises of his employer. And the doctrine of notional extension arises out of interpretation of court expanded the meaning of section 3(1).
Section 3(1) of Workmen’s Compensation Act, 1923 states about the employer’s liability for compensation with its exceptions. The matter in section 3 with the regard to exception is –
As first exception to the doctrine of notional extension is that if any person does not suffer from disability caused by injury during working hours for more than three days then the employer is not liable to pay his employee.
Second exception is that employer is not liable, if the employee is working in the condition of intoxication and he suffered injury while working in that condition.
Thirdly, if the employee or any worker disobeys is master in those matters which are expressed him for his or other workers safety and security.
Fourthly, if worker removes any safety product or device provided to him by his employer for his security and safety then also the employer is not liable to pay compensation.
There is another exception to the doctrine of notional extension, which states that whenever an accident occurs in public area and risks suffered by workman is not because of his employment but because he was a public member then the employer will not be liable to pay compensation.
After having a thorough look, on the above, you can apply these principles in your case, and can arrive a conclusion on an humanitarian and compassionate grounds.
Regards
Vijay N.V.
From India, Madras
Doctrine of Notional Extension is one of the eminent features of Employees Compensation Act, 1923. According to the doctrine of notional extension compensation to be provided to the injured worker under Employees State Insurance Act, 1948 and Workmen’s Compensation Act, 1923.
The doctrine of notional extension mentioned under Section 3 of the Employees Compensation Act, 1923 says that it is the legal obligation of an employer to provide damages to their employees, their family members in situations where injury are inflicted during working hours at the workplace.
Section 3 of the Employees Compensation Act, 1923, states about the employer’s liability for compensation and the doctrine of notional extension has evolved from this section only.
Section 3(1) of the said Act sates that “if personal injury is caused to an employee by accident arising out of and in the course of his employment: his employer shall be liable to pay compensation in accordance with the Chapter II of Employees Compensation Act, 1923.
Meaning of arising out of employment and in the course of his employment
When the accident occurs in premises of the employer during working hours at any time when the workmen is at work, it may be possible to say that the accident had took place within the sphere of his employment and therefore, it is easy to declare that the accident has been out of and in the course of employment. But main problem arises when an accident has taken place on a public road in the absence of any fact showing that it is the nature workmen’s employment which required or bring the worker on the accident spot. Because everyone has right to walk on public road and liability cannot be purely saddled on the employer that the accident has occurred, when the employee was coming to the place of employment. So, as a general rule the employment of workman does not start until he has reached the place of his employment and does not continue with him when he left for his home. Unless it is proved that the nature of workmen employment was such that requires him to be there.
Now the doctrine of notional extension come in the picture which include both in time and place and a workman may be regarded as in the course of his employment whether he has not reached or has left the premises of his employer. And the doctrine of notional extension arises out of interpretation of court expanded the meaning of section 3(1).
Section 3(1) of Workmen’s Compensation Act, 1923 states about the employer’s liability for compensation with its exceptions. The matter in section 3 with the regard to exception is –
As first exception to the doctrine of notional extension is that if any person does not suffer from disability caused by injury during working hours for more than three days then the employer is not liable to pay his employee.
Second exception is that employer is not liable, if the employee is working in the condition of intoxication and he suffered injury while working in that condition.
Thirdly, if the employee or any worker disobeys is master in those matters which are expressed him for his or other workers safety and security.
Fourthly, if worker removes any safety product or device provided to him by his employer for his security and safety then also the employer is not liable to pay compensation.
There is another exception to the doctrine of notional extension, which states that whenever an accident occurs in public area and risks suffered by workman is not because of his employment but because he was a public member then the employer will not be liable to pay compensation.
After having a thorough look, on the above, you can apply these principles in your case, and can arrive a conclusion on an humanitarian and compassionate grounds.
Regards
Vijay N.V.
From India, Madras
Community Support and Knowledge-base on business, career and organisational prospects and issues - Register and Log In to CiteHR and post your query, download formats and be part of a fostered community of professionals.
Employee Appraisal Form new.doc