Q-2 What are the facts under which an employer is not liable to pay compensation under workmen’s compensation act 1923?
Ans: In establishing the liability of the employee two things are very Important which are be proved first is that the person injured is employed as workman and the second is that the injury is caused by an accident which arose out of and in the course of employment. In the second case the word accident has its important which means that it will have to be proved that the injury was caused by an accident and not by a deliberate and managed act of the worker himself After accident the main thing which is to be established is that the accident must have occurred when the worker was engaged in his employment and if it is proved that the worker was not -doubt busy with some work hut that work was not his job to do the claim far compensation will fail. It means that the accident must have occurred when the worker was doing his own job for which he was employed.
The word “out of employment” implies that the injury must have some relation to the employment of the injured. The points which absolve an employer from ‘his liability are that the worker at the time of accident was under the influence of drink or drugs or the worker committed a deliberate disobedience of an order clearly given or a rule which has been expressly meant for the safety of the workman. Not using the devices provided by the employer for the safety of the worker will also absolve the employer from his liability (Section 3).
EMPLOYER NOT TO PA Y COMPENSATION
Under the following facts an employed is not liable to pay compensation under Workmen’s compensation Act, 1923:
The defences, which an employer can take, are the following:
- That the injured is not a person who can be regarded an employee.
- That the accident did not arose out of and the course of the employment of the injured.
- That the worker was under the influence of drink or drugs at the time of the accident.
- That the injured willfully disobeyed the order expressly given or did not observe the rule expressly meant for the safety of the worker e.g. he did not use the eye shield at the time of welding in which he was engaged and’ which, was provided to him.
- That the disablement did not last for more than four days.
Who like spiders, the question would http://writemyessay4me.org work well