Employee's Compensation — Evolution and Key Definitions — Labour Law II Notes

Employee’s Compensation — Evolution and Key Definitions

At common law an injured worker who sued his employer almost always lost. Three defences — the “unholy trinity” — beat him every time: common employment (the injury was caused by a fellow worker, not the master), contributory negligence (the worker was partly careless), and volenti non fit injuria [to one who consents, no wrong is done] (he knew the job was risky and took it anyway). The Workmen’s Compensation Act, 1923 swept all three aside and said: if the injury arose out of the work, the employer pays — full stop.

What the scheme is, and the words that decide every case

The idea is no-fault liability. The worker no longer has to prove the employer was careless; he only has to show the injury arose out of and in the course of his employment. In return, the amounts are fixed by a formula, not by what a civil court might award. The Workmen’s Compensation Act 1923 is now Chapter VII of the Code on Social Security, 2020 (sections 73–99), renamed “Employee’s Compensation”.

Because liability is automatic, the definitions do the heavy lifting — most problems are really “does this person / this event fall inside a definition?”

Employee — a person employed on wages to do any work (skilled, unskilled, manual, clerical, supervisory). The old Act used “workman” with a schedule of covered employments; the Code widens this to “employee”. A watchman or security guard at the factory gate is an employee — he is engaged on wages for the employer’s work — so the “is he a workman?” problem is answered yes.
Dependant — the relatives who may claim if the worker dies: widow, minor children, and (where wholly/partly dependent) parents and others listed in the Code. This decides who receives a death compensation.
Employer — includes any body of persons, and the legal representative of a deceased employer, and a person to whom the services of the worker are temporarily lent or let on hire.
Wages — the earnings used to calculate the amount; includes any privilege or benefit capable of being valued in money, but not a contribution to a pension/PF or travelling allowance.
Partial and total disablement — the loss of earning capacity (taught in full in Topic 5).

Section 2, Code on Social Security 2020 (employee, in brief): “any person … employed on wages … to do any skilled, semi-skilled or unskilled, manual, operational, supervisory, managerial, administrative, technical or clerical work …”

In Simple Terms: Forget fault. Ask three things — is the injured person an employee, was there an accident, and did it arise out of and in the course of the employment? If yes, the employer pays a formula amount. The claimant on a death is a dependant.

🧩 WORKED EXAMPLE — is the gate guard an “employee”?

Facts. ‘A’ is engaged on monthly wages as a security inspector at the factory gate and is injured on duty.

Rule. An “employee” is a person employed on wages for the employer’s work, whatever its nature — manual, supervisory or otherwise.

Apply. A guards the employer’s premises for wages; the work is done for and under the employer. Nothing in the definition excludes security work.

Conclusion. A is an employee and, if injured in an accident arising out of and in the course of that employment, can claim compensation.

flowchart TD
    ROOT["Employee's Compensation — the gate test"]:::root
    ROOT --> Q1["Is the claimant an EMPLOYEE?"]:::leaf
    Q1 --> Q2["Was there an ACCIDENT / notified disease?"]:::leaf
    Q2 --> Q3["Did it arise OUT OF and IN THE COURSE OF employment?"]:::leaf
    Q3 --> PAY["Employer liable — pay formula amount"]:::pay
    classDef root fill:#FFF8DC,stroke:#000,stroke-width:1px,color:#000;
    classDef leaf fill:#E6F3FF,stroke:#1E3A8A,color:#000;
    classDef pay fill:#E7F6E7,stroke:#217a21,color:#000;
    linkStyle default stroke:#888,stroke-width:1px;

Case Laws

Dharangadhara Chemical Works v State of Saurashtra (1957) — the test of an employee is the employer’s right to control how the work is done, not merely what is done.
B. Shah v Presiding Officer (1977) — welfare legislation must be construed beneficially, in favour of the worker.

📄 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