IN THE HONORABLE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
IN THE MATTER OF
SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION
AIR 1958 SC 881
Salt Manufacturing Co. …. Petitioner
Versus
Bai Valu Raja and Others …. Respondent
BEFORE:
J. N Bhagwati, S J Imam, P Gajendragadkar
SAURASHTRA SALT MANUFACTURING CO. V. BAI VALU RAJA
INTRODUCTION
Section 3(1) of the Employees Compensation Act uses the word “employment” and “arising out of” and “in course of employment” is a wider concept as these terms are not limited only to the accidents which may occur in employment place but this is extended to the outer sphere of employment place depending upon the fact whether he was working in course of employment or not. In such cases, the employer shall be liable to pay compensation. This extended liability of the Employer is called the Doctrine of Notional Extension. The extent of Employer’s liability and concept of “arising out of” and “in course of employment” is decided in the landmark case of Saurashtra Salt Manufacturing Co. v. Bai Valu Raja
FACTS
In Saurashtra Salt manufacturing Co., there are temporary and permanent workers both being employed by this company. One among them was appellant who worked on a temporal basis with that same company.. The salt works were owned by appellant, located at Porbandar, near a creek where employees could go through two ways; either through land route which is about six to seven miles long or using boats that operate to get across for an hour.
The Asmavati stairway marks one end while on other side lies Porbandar town from where it can be crossed as point A up-to point B which has some sandy shore located at Porbandar end of creek. From point B people crossing from A disembarked from boat. After going through this sandy part then proceed up to salt seawall then eventually enter into salt works.
There were few employees who after going by boat for purposes reaching their work places and thinking about going back drowned giving rise to 7 workmen compensation act cases further filed against them also under Workmen’s Compensation Act. The Commissioner for Workmen’s Compensation found that it was an accident arising out of their work process that led to the tragedy. The Appellant moved to High Court of Saurashtra (Now Mumbai) and second court dismissed this appeal as elaborated in this discussion. This legal position was challenged by the Appellant before Supreme Court and they wanted clear meaning of “Doctrine of Notional Extension” as well as what is “arising out of and in the course of employment”.
LEGAL PROVISIONS
SECTION 3 of Employees Compensation Act, 1923
Employer’s liability for compensation.
(1) If personal injury is caused to a workman by accident arising out of and in the course of his employment, his employer shall be liable to pay compensation in accordance with the provisions of this Chapter: Provided that the employer shall not be so liable–
In respect of any injury which does not result in the total or partial disablement of the workman for a period exceeding three] days.
in respect of any injury, not resulting in death, caused by] an accident which is directly attributable to-
(I) the workman having been at the time thereof under the influence of drink or drugs, or
(ii) The willful disobedience of the workman to an order expressly given, or to a rule expressly framed, for securing safety where workers are concerned.
(iii) An employee who willingly removes or ignores a safety guard or any other device that he was aware had been provided to secure other workmen’s safety
ISSUES
(1) Whether there existed an agreement between the appellant and the ferrywalas or kharvas for its employees in respect of being conveyed to and from salt works’ premises and, if so, what were its terms; and
(2) Whether, even assuming that anything like that existed, it also covered such occasional labourers falling within these procedures who were going towards or coming back from the salt works.
JUDGEMENT
In general, the employment of a worker will only begin when he arrives at his place of work and will cease when he leaves it leaving aside the journey to and from it.
The reality is however based on the concept of notional extension of factory premises to embrace an area which is passed by a worker as well while going to as well as leaving actual workplace. The test applies both ways: sometimes, there may be some reasonable extension of time as well as space whereby a person may still be thought to be in his employer’s employ even though he has not yet reached him or has already left him. In determining whether an injury arose out of the course employment attention must therefore always be paid to this theory of public extension having regard to all facts and conditions of each case.
While on a public road, in a public place or upon a public vehicle, an employee is in his capacity just like any other member of the public anywhere except that he is at work unless otherwise dictated by its very nature Closeness of place where accident occurred vis-a-vis place of work is irrelevant for this purpose. It should however be observed that even under notionally expanded working areas in which employers retain full control over employees’ actions through disciplinary codes etc., once they hit onto 5th Avenue they enter into no man’s land as they all become members of the public and whilst in such a place employers’ acts cannot be imputed on them [Commrs. for Port of Calcutta v Kaniz Fatema AIR 1961 Cal. 310].
A worker does not start work from the time he steps out to his work place and is on its way to it. He is certainly throughout his employment once he arrives at a workplace or a point or an area which is so nearly up to notional extension beyond which the employer will not be liable to pay compensation for any accident that may happen to him.
The Supreme Court held, however, that in view of the situation revealed by evidence before it, the accident did not occur during the course of employment as while crossing over river because this theory of notional extension could not reach up to where boat capsized.
CRITICAL ANALYSIS
A typical employment begins when an employee arrives at the office and ends when he leaves the employer’s premises. The principle of notional extension obliges employers to compensate for accidents involving their workers outside the company premises, but this depends on whether or not he was acting in the course of his employment with his employer. The fact that a worker is only slightly careless will not reduce his common-law obligation to indemnify him; however, despite many different decisions, it still remains unclear about how far an employer can exploit employees by simply refusing to pay them any compensation according to any accident occurred while performing duties under employment circumstances. Employer’s liability may differ from case to case.
