?

K
C
O
H
S
C
I
R
T
C
E
L
E
N
A
T
I
WAS

01)
AADIT PATTNAIK(15PGP0
AAYUSH SINGH SENGHAR
ADITI AGARWAL
PRIYANKA BAGREE
PAVAN H.K.
MANSINGH HEMBRAM
RAJAT LAKHOTIA

QUESTION-1

WHAT ARE THE ISSUES AND LESSONS ?

NOTABLE POINTS FROM CASE

ENGAGED IN THE ERECTION, REPAIR AND MAINTENANCE OF ELECTRICAL LINES IN THE QUARRY OF MINES
ARISING OUT OF AND IN THE COURSE OF WORK

(DOCTRINE OF ADDED PERIL NOT VALID HERE)

DECLARED UNFIT FOR SIX WEEKS DUE TO INJURIES

UNFIT TO DO WORK FOR MORE THAN 3 DAYS AND HENCE QUALIFIED FOR COMPENSATION

 CHECKED THE ELECTRICAL CIRCUIT OF THE PREMISES - FOUND EVERYTHING IN ORDER - CONCLUDED THAT
THE SUPPLY WAS DISCONNECTED FROM THE SERVICE LINES

CONFIRMED THAT HE HAD SWITCHED OFF THE MAIN SUPPLY LINES FEEDING THAT AREA
HAD BEEN DOING SUCH REPAIRS MANY TIMES EARLIER WITHOUT THE LADDER AND SAFETY BELT
NON- AVAILABILITY OF TRANSPORT AND MANPOWER FOR CARRYING THE TOOLS AND TACKLES TO THE
ACCIDENT SITE

CONTRIBUTORY NEGLIGENCE BUT NOT WILFUL DISOBEDIENCE OF ORDERS OR SAFETY DEVICES

QUESTION-2
SHOULD MOHANLAL BE GIVEN PAID LEAVE AND COMPENSATED AS PER THE
PROVISIONS IN THE WORKMENS COMPENSATION ACT ?

SHOULD HE BE PENALISED FOR HIS NEGLIGENCE OR VIOLATION OF SAFETY

REGULATIONS IF ANY?

QUESTION-3

WOULD IT MAKE A DIFFERENCE IF MOHANLAL WAS A

CONTRACT WORKER, NOT A REGULAR EMPLOYEE?

ANSWER
SECTION 12 OF THE EMPLOYEES COMPENSATION ACT,1923 STATES

THAT THE PRINCIPAL EMPLOYER IS LIABLE TO PAY THE

COMPENSATION TO THE WORKMAN HIRED THROUGH A
CONTRACTOR IF THE INJURY ARISES OUT OF AN ACCIDENT ARISING
OUT OF AND IN COURSE OF WORK

QUESTION-4
WHAT WAS THE ROLE OF MANAGEMENT, PARTICULARLY THE
PERSON WHO SUPERVISES THE WORK OF MOHANLAL?

ANSWER
IT WAS THE DUTY OF THE SUPERVISOR TO WARN HIM AND MAKE HIM USE PROPER SAFETY TOOLS AND
ENSURE IT PROVIDING HIM WITH SUFFICIENT MANPOWER AND TRANSPORTATION TO ENABLE IT

ONLY IF SUCH AN ORDER WAS FLOUTED, ONLY THEN WILFUL DISOBEDIENCE COMES INTO PICTURE