2392
Notional extension of work can apply only in rare cases depending upon the nature, characteristics and circumstances of the case. That cannot be a general rule. The instance quoted by the anonymous author is surprising, where he has tried to compare walking with transport that too crossing the railway track. Moreover, there is a marked difference between walk and transport. The vehicle of transport can meet with the accident due to various reasons, but a person walking alongside a railway track cannot be expected not to use precautions to avoid himself from hitting by the train and more so, if he walks across the railway line without taking due precautions. That can only be treated as a suicidal attempt, if he walks across just before the running train.
From India, Delhi
From India, Delhi
Here is the link from the extract of the case study from the book.
https://books.google.co.in/books?id=...SSC6IQ6AEIHDAB
You could even google for "railway crossing, notional extension of work" and read for yourself
From Indonesia, Jakarta
https://books.google.co.in/books?id=...SSC6IQ6AEIHDAB
You could even google for "railway crossing, notional extension of work" and read for yourself
From Indonesia, Jakarta
Here is the link for the case.
https://books.google.co.in/books?id=...SSC6IQ6AEIHDAB
You could even google for," railway line crossing, notional extension of work " and you will find the case.
From Indonesia, Jakarta
https://books.google.co.in/books?id=...SSC6IQ6AEIHDAB
You could even google for," railway line crossing, notional extension of work " and you will find the case.
From Indonesia, Jakarta
Dear contributors to this thread
Please read the judgement of the Honourable Supreme Court of India in Regional Director ESI vs Francis DeCosta delivered on 5-5-1992.This judgement is under the Employees State Insurance Act. But in this judgement the Honourable Supreme Court had explained in detail as to what is meant by "arising out of and in the course of employment". This judgement is available in the website of indiakanoon.org. This judgement is followed by the other subordinate courrts. If the other contributors could cite any other judgement in which the above mentioned judgement hd been overruled I would be much obliged to them.
With regards
From India, Madras
Please read the judgement of the Honourable Supreme Court of India in Regional Director ESI vs Francis DeCosta delivered on 5-5-1992.This judgement is under the Employees State Insurance Act. But in this judgement the Honourable Supreme Court had explained in detail as to what is meant by "arising out of and in the course of employment". This judgement is available in the website of indiakanoon.org. This judgement is followed by the other subordinate courrts. If the other contributors could cite any other judgement in which the above mentioned judgement hd been overruled I would be much obliged to them.
With regards
From India, Madras
The answer depends on the facts and circumstances as to how the death occurred while returning home . The principle in this context is that the accident which gave rise to the claim for compensation must have some relation to the work man's employment and must be due to risk incidental to the employment, as distinguished from risk to which all members of the public alike were exposed.
From India, Kochi
From India, Kochi
Mr Anonymous,
Reading between the lines can tend only to confusions and wrong actions. Half knowledge is always harmful for both, who applies as well as that on whom applied in official life.
May that chapter of notional employment be there in all the text books of Masters in HR, but correct interpretation is called for from the reader, if any advice is desired to be rendered to others. You have referred the link page, but seems you have not read and interpreted that properly before posting your observation. You are advised to re-read the full paragraph you referred and you will find that the exception has very clearly been given at the end of the paragrpah, where written, "The employment begins ………… and it does not come to an end ……………. back home, WITH THE ONLY EXCEPTION THAT EMPLOYEE IS ON THE ROAD, PUBLIC PLACE OR IN PUBLIC TRANSPORT, HE IS NOT IN THE COURSE OF EMPLOYMENT AND HAS TO BE TREATED LIKE ANY OTHER MEMBER OF PUBLIC."
NOT ONLY THAT, a sentence of the text also reads as, "the expression Is not to be regarded as confined to the nature of employment AND APPLIES EQUALLY TO ALL CONDITIONS, OBLIGATIONS AND INCIDENTS OF EMPLOYMENT.
You may like to know that in that case the employee was a Railway employee and working in the Works Manager, Carriage and Wagon Workshop, where the nature of his employment conditions, obligations and incidents of employment, compelled him to cross the railway line both ways while coming and going to duty, as railway workshops are always situated between the rail lines, not on roads.
Thus, your response clearly tends to give wrong message to the HR professionals. So, your statement that “court judgments which endorse the view that the time an employee commences his journey from home for work till the time he reaches back home after work on a normal route which he takes daily is considered to be notional extension of work and is considered on duty,” is quite wrong as you have not quoted any court judgment that could confirm that IF EMPLOYEE IS ON THE ROAD, PUBLIC PLACE OR IN PUBLIC TRANSPORT, he should be considered in the course of employment while coming or going from home for work on employment.
However, if you lay any hand on any such court judgment, you are welcome to quote that.
From India, Delhi
Reading between the lines can tend only to confusions and wrong actions. Half knowledge is always harmful for both, who applies as well as that on whom applied in official life.
May that chapter of notional employment be there in all the text books of Masters in HR, but correct interpretation is called for from the reader, if any advice is desired to be rendered to others. You have referred the link page, but seems you have not read and interpreted that properly before posting your observation. You are advised to re-read the full paragraph you referred and you will find that the exception has very clearly been given at the end of the paragrpah, where written, "The employment begins ………… and it does not come to an end ……………. back home, WITH THE ONLY EXCEPTION THAT EMPLOYEE IS ON THE ROAD, PUBLIC PLACE OR IN PUBLIC TRANSPORT, HE IS NOT IN THE COURSE OF EMPLOYMENT AND HAS TO BE TREATED LIKE ANY OTHER MEMBER OF PUBLIC."
NOT ONLY THAT, a sentence of the text also reads as, "the expression Is not to be regarded as confined to the nature of employment AND APPLIES EQUALLY TO ALL CONDITIONS, OBLIGATIONS AND INCIDENTS OF EMPLOYMENT.
You may like to know that in that case the employee was a Railway employee and working in the Works Manager, Carriage and Wagon Workshop, where the nature of his employment conditions, obligations and incidents of employment, compelled him to cross the railway line both ways while coming and going to duty, as railway workshops are always situated between the rail lines, not on roads.
Thus, your response clearly tends to give wrong message to the HR professionals. So, your statement that “court judgments which endorse the view that the time an employee commences his journey from home for work till the time he reaches back home after work on a normal route which he takes daily is considered to be notional extension of work and is considered on duty,” is quite wrong as you have not quoted any court judgment that could confirm that IF EMPLOYEE IS ON THE ROAD, PUBLIC PLACE OR IN PUBLIC TRANSPORT, he should be considered in the course of employment while coming or going from home for work on employment.
However, if you lay any hand on any such court judgment, you are welcome to quote that.
From India, Delhi
I appreciate the views of Shri P. Venu that "answer depends on the facts and circumstances as to how the death occurred while returning home."
Even in the judgment, referred by Shri V. Harikrishnan, the Supreme Court judges very clearly observed, "We are of the view that in the facts of this case, it cannot be said that the injury suffered by the workman one kilometer away from the factory while he was on his way to the factory was caused by an accident arising out of and in the course of his employment."
So, there is no scope of any liability from Employer end for the employee coming and going from/ for duty unless CONDITIONS, OBLIGATIONS AND INCIDENTS OF EMPLOYMENT expects so on the part of the employee.
From India, Delhi
Even in the judgment, referred by Shri V. Harikrishnan, the Supreme Court judges very clearly observed, "We are of the view that in the facts of this case, it cannot be said that the injury suffered by the workman one kilometer away from the factory while he was on his way to the factory was caused by an accident arising out of and in the course of his employment."
So, there is no scope of any liability from Employer end for the employee coming and going from/ for duty unless CONDITIONS, OBLIGATIONS AND INCIDENTS OF EMPLOYMENT expects so on the part of the employee.
From India, Delhi
Dear All
PFA copy of Gazette Notification wherein the ESI Act has been amended in 2010 with an insertion of Sec 51 E, which provides for covering the accidents to an employee while commuting for work or going back home after work as employment injury.
Regards
N Nataraajhan, Sakthi Management Services (Hp : + 91 94835 17402 ; e-mail :
)
From India, Bangalore
PFA copy of Gazette Notification wherein the ESI Act has been amended in 2010 with an insertion of Sec 51 E, which provides for covering the accidents to an employee while commuting for work or going back home after work as employment injury.
Regards
N Nataraajhan, Sakthi Management Services (Hp : + 91 94835 17402 ; e-mail :
From India, Bangalore
Dear Mr Dhingra
There appears to be some difference between the posts you have made on the previous days especially your first post in this thread and the last post you have made today. Which post has to be taken as the correct legal position. I would request you to advise.
With regards
From India, Madras
There appears to be some difference between the posts you have made on the previous days especially your first post in this thread and the last post you have made today. Which post has to be taken as the correct legal position. I would request you to advise.
With regards
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.
Budget Cost coming!.ppt