Advertisements
Advertisements
Question
Rules:
A. A person is an employee of another if the mode and the manner in which he or she carries out his work is subject to control and supervision of the latter.
B. An employer is required to provide compensation to his or her employees for any injury caused by an accident arising in the course of employment. The words ‘in the course of the employment’ mean in the course of the work which the employee is contracted to do and which is incidental to it.
Facts:
Messers. Zafar Abidi and Co. (Company) manufactures bidis with the help of persons known as ‘pattadrs’. The pattadars are supplied tobacco and leaves by the Company and are required to roll them into bidis and bring the bidis back to the Company. The pattadars are free to roll the bidis either in the factory or anywhere else they prefer. They are not bound to attend the factory for any fixed number of bidis. The Company verifies whether the bidis adhere to the specified instructions or not pays the pattadars on the basis of the number of bids that are found to be of right quality. Aashish Mathew is one of the pattadars of the Company. He was hit by a car just outside the precinct of the factory while he was heading to have lunch in a nearby food-stall. Aashish Mathew has applied for compensation from the Company.
Select the statement that could be said to be most direct inference from specified facts:
Options
The injury to Aashish Mathew did not arise in the course of employment as he was not rolling bidis at the time when he was hit by the car.
Since the Ashish Mathew is a contracted pattadar with the Company, it shall be presumed that the injury was caused by an accident in the course of employment.
Since there was no relationship of employment between Aashish Mathew and the Company, the injury suffered by Aashish Mathew could not be held to be one arising in the course of employment notwithstanding the fact that the concerned injury was caused while he was involved in an activity incidental to his duties.
As the concerned injury was caused to Aashish Mathew while he was involved in an activity incidental to his duties, the injury did arise in the course of employment.
Solution
The injury to Aashish Mathew did not arise in the course of employment as he was not rolling bidis at the time when he was hit by the car.
Explanation:
See the case of State Bank of India v. Shyama Devi.
