Disablement; 'Arising Out of and in the Course of Employment'; Notional Extension — Labour Law II Notes

Disablement; “Arising Out of and in the Course of Employment”; Notional Extension

In 1958 a factory worker crossed a public ferry on his way home from the salt works, the boat capsized, and he drowned. Was that “in the course of employment”, though he had left the factory? The Supreme Court in Saurashtra Salt said the answer depends on how far the employment can be notionally extended beyond the gate — and that doctrine has decided such problems ever since.

Two phrases, one doctrine, and the disablement ladder

“Arising out of employment” means the injury has a causal connection with the work — the risk was one the job exposed the worker to. “In the course of employment” means it happened within the time and place of the job. Both must be satisfied. Say them together as one test.

The rigid “time and place” limit is softened by the doctrine of notional extension. Employment does not begin sharply at the factory gate and end sharply there; it is treated as notionally extended a reasonable distance in time and space — for example while the worker is entering or leaving by a route the employment requires him to use. An accident in that extended zone is still “in the course of employment.”

There is a matching idea for cause: the added-peril and act-of-God tests. If the employment exposes the worker to a special risk greater than the public faces, an injury from that risk arises out of employment (added peril). A pure act of God — lightning, an earthquake — does not arise out of employment unless the work added to the risk (e.g. the job put the worker in a specially exposed place).

Disablement is the loss of earning capacity, and it comes in a ladder:

• Total disablement — the worker is disabled from all work he was capable of doing at the time of the accident. Certain injuries listed in the Schedule (e.g. loss of both hands, or sight of both eyes) are deemed to be permanent total disablement without further proof.

• Partial disablement — earning capacity is only reduced. It is temporary (capacity reduced for a period) or permanent (a scheduled injury, e.g. loss of one eye, reduces earning capacity permanently by a fixed percentage).

Section 2, Code on Social Security 2020 (partial disablement, in brief): “where the disablement is of a temporary nature, such disablement as reduces the earning capacity … in any employment in which he was engaged at the time of the accident; and where permanent, such disablement as reduces his earning capacity in every employment which he was capable of undertaking …”

In Simple Terms: Total = cannot earn at all in the work he could do before; partial = can still earn, but less. Notional extension stretches “in the course of employment” a little past the gate; the added-peril test stretches “arising out of” to cover special risks the job creates.

🧩 WORKED EXAMPLE — death by natural lightning at the workplace

Facts. A worker is killed by natural lightning while working on the employer’s premises.

Rule. A natural act of God does not “arise out of employment” unless the employment exposed the worker to a greater risk than the general public (added-peril test).

Apply. If the work merely placed him where anyone might have been struck, there is no special risk and no liability. If the work put him in a specially exposed spot (a high open structure, a metal tower) the employment added to the risk, and the death arises out of employment.

Conclusion. Liability turns on the added-peril test — state the test, then decide on the facts given; do not answer “act of God, so never liable”.

flowchart TD
    ROOT["Disablement — loss of earning capacity"]:::root
    ROOT --> T["TOTAL<br/>no work he could do before<br/>(Schedule = deemed permanent total)"]:::leaf
    ROOT --> P["PARTIAL<br/>earning capacity only reduced"]:::leaf
    P --> PT["Temporary partial"]:::leaf
    P --> PP["Permanent partial (scheduled %)"]:::leaf
    classDef root fill:#FFF8DC,stroke:#000,stroke-width:1px,color:#000;
    classDef leaf fill:#E6F3FF,stroke:#1E3A8A,color:#000;
    linkStyle default stroke:#888,stroke-width:1px;

Case Laws

• [C-3] Saurashtra Salt Manufacturing Co. v Bai Valu Raja (1958) — notional extension covers a reasonable route/time to and from work; here the ferry crossing fell outside it on the facts.
• [C-4] Mackinnon Mackenzie & Co. v Ibrahim Mahmmed Issak (1969) — a seaman missing from a ship; the accident is presumed to arise out of employment where the facts point that way — the classic “arising out of” authority.
• General Manager, B.E.S.T. Undertaking v Agnes (1964) — a tram-driver killed while travelling home in the employer’s transport was “in the course of employment” — notional extension applied.
• Trustees, Port of Bombay v Yamunabai (1952) — a bomb injured a worker at the workplace; the added risk of the place made it arise out of employment.

Back to Top

📄 Full notes + Question Bank (₹199) — every topic in depth, model answers to all past KSLU questions, in one printable PDF. Get the bundle · 10 Solved Problems · All Labour Law II topics