Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

Injury related to employment:

22. In order to determine the question, in case of death or injury to a disease, whether the disease related to employment, the Court has to examine the following factors: (1) Whether the disease is contacted in course of employment; (2) whether the injury is related to the occupational hazard undertaken in course of employment; (3) whether the stress and strain of the job undertaken in course of employment was the reason for development of the disease; (4) whether the reason for development of the disease is connected with the nature of employment; (5) whether the stress and strain has aggravated the disease, though not connected or developed due to the nature of the employment; (6) whether the disease is so peculiarly or exceptionally coupled with the employment that any one undertaking such job would be exposed to such disease; (7) whether the disease and the resultant death was casually connected with the employment; (8) whether the employment is a contributory cause or has accelerated the death; (9) whether the death was due not only to the disease but the disease coupled with the employment; (10) in respect of a pre-existing disease, whether it can be said that the disease was aggravated or accelerated by reason of the employment or its stress and strain; (11) whether the disease was the result or any added peril to which the workman by his conduct exposed himself and which peril was not involved in the normal performance of the duties of his employment; (12) whether the disease is common to mankind and could be contacted by person unconnected with the kind or nature of the employment; (13) if the death is due to a disease the workman was suffering from, as a result the wear and tear of the employment, then no liability can be fixed on the employer. However, each case has to be examined and assessed on the basis of peculiarity of the facts of each case.

27. Mr. Bhattacharyya had also relied on the decision of Parle Products. Limited v. Subir Mukherjee reported in (2000) 2 Cal. H.N. 766. In the said decision, the test for determination as to whether the accident could be held to have arisen out of employment is that the workman is, in fact, employed or performing the duties of his employment at the time of accident. Another test would be that the accident occurred at or about the place where the performance of his duties required him to be present. It is a case where the accident involved the reason common to all humanity and did not involve any peculiarity or exceptional damage resulting from the nature of employment or where the accident was the result of an added peril to which the workman, by his own conduct, exposed himself and which peril was not involved in the normal performance of the duties of his employment. This decision had relied on the decisions in the case of Armstrong Withworth & Co. v. Redford reported in 1920 A.C. 757 at 780; Mcculhum v. North Umbrain Shipping Co. reported in (1932) 147 L.T. 361, and Cardillo v. Liberty Mutua Insurance Co. reported in 330 U.S. 469. In order to arrive at the above conclusion, it had also relied on a Full Bench decision of the Assam High Court in Assam Railway and Trading Co. Ltd. v. Saraswati Devi reported in A.I.R. 1963 Assam 127, and Smt. Rita Devi and Ors. v. New India Assurance Co. Limited reported in II (2000) ACC 291 (SC) : 2000 A.I.R. S.C.W. 1579.

28. If we analyse the said decision, we find that it had pointed out some ingredients on the basis of which the question is to be tested. Here the alleged injury has been alleged to have taken place in the vessel which test is satisfied, but whether the injury was the result of a peculiar or exceptional damage resulting from the nature of employment or whether it was the peril involved in the normal performance of duties of his employment. As it appears that the death having occurred on account of cancer, it is a reason common to all humanity. Therefore, it cannot be said to be a peculiar or exceptional damage resulting from the nature of employment as discussed above. It is neither an added peril involved in the normal performance of the duties. On the other hand, it was quite natural to contact disease outside the scope and nature of employment and if accident occurs due to such disease, it cannot come within the purview of the Workmen's Compensation Act.