Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 232 (1.96 seconds)
Documents citing Mackinnon Mackenzie & Co. Pvt. Ltd vs Ibrahim Mahommed Issak on 14 August, 1969

Mst. Abida Khatun vs General Manager, Diesel Locomotive on 15 May, 1972

72. The principle laid down by these authorities appears to be that the burden of proof primarily rests on the workman to prove that the accident arose within the employment, but it is not necessary that there must be direct evidence to that effect. It is open to the Court to draw such an inference from the facts brought on the record of the case if such an inference is legitimately possible. There must, however, be some material on record to lead to the inference that the accident was attributable to the employment of the workman.
Allahabad High Court Cites 16 - Cited by 10 - Full Document

M/S Star Press vs Meena Devi on 12 April, 2017

In Mackinnon Machenzie & Co. (P) Ltd. v. Ibrahim Mahmmed Issak, 1969 (2) SCC 607, a seaman employed on the ship was found missing and his legal representatives claimed compensation under the Workmen‟s Compensation Act. The Supreme Court upheld FAO 242/2015 Page 38 of 47 the dismissal of the claim by the Commissioner on the ground that there was no material to hold that the death took place on account of an accident which arose out of his employment. This judgment does not support the appellant as in the present case, the deceased has been murdered and accidental murder arose out of and during the course of employment.
Delhi High Court Cites 37 - Cited by 1 - J R Midha - Full Document

Natwarsinh A. Chauhan vs Niranjanbhai K. Shah on 17 November, 1990

In this connection, learned Counsel Mr. Shah for the employer has placed reliance on the decision rendered in the case of M. Mackenzie v. I.M. Issak reported in AIR 1970 SC 1906. After having, carefully, examined the said decision of the Apex Court, this Court is of the opinion that the said decision is not applicable to the facts of the present case. On the contrary, it is observed in the said decision that it will be open for the Commissioner to infer about the accidental injury or death when the facts proved justify inference. No doubt, it is held in the said decision that the injury by accident must arise both out of and in the course of employment. The words "in the course of the employment" mean "in the course of the work which the workman is employed to do and which is incidental to it" . In the present case, it cannot be said that the workman was not a miscellaneous worker. Apart from that, it is a matter of common understanding that a labourer is attending, time and again, such work as directed by the master though not initially agreed to be done. In other words, a labourer may attend, at times, to other miscellaneous work, on the command of his master, during the course of employment. It is not like a district jackel formula mat the workman should not be asked to do any other duty nor he would refuse to do it. Even if we take the contention of the employer that the workman was supposed only to do the folding work only, at its face value, even then, in that case also, it cannot be said that the workman was prohibited from doing miscellaneous work like fetching water for drinking for himself and others. Be as it may. Going for drinking water or for washing his face or hand or fetching water for other workers is, undoubtedly, incidental to the work of a labourer. Therefore, the aforesaid decision of the Supreme Court will not be, in any way, helpful to the contention raised by Mr. Shah, learned Counsel for the employer.
Gujarat High Court Cites 14 - Cited by 4 - Full Document

The Oriental Insurance Company Ltd. vs Smt. Poonam Devi & Others on 9 May, 2014

13. Applying the test laid down by the Apex Court in Mackinnon Mackenzie & Co. Pvt. Ltd v. Ibrahim Mohd. Issak case (supra), in the case of Mallikarjun G. Hiremath (supra), the Apex Court set aside the order of the Compensation Commissioner providing compensation to the dependents of a deceased-driver, who had taken a vehicle to a Temple under the terms of the employment but while sitting on steps of a pond in the Temple, he slipped and fell into the water and died due to drowning.
Allahabad High Court Cites 9 - Cited by 3 - M Misra - Full Document

National Insurance Co. Ltd. vs Nalini Dehwari And Ors. on 4 January, 2000

As observed by the Apex Court in the decision in Mackinnon Mackenzie & Co. v. Ibrahim Mahmmod Issak (supra), the expression 'arising out of employment' is not confined to the mere nature to employment. "The expression applies to employment as such to its nature, its conditions, its obligations and its incidents. If by reason of any of these factors, the workman is brought within the zone of special danger, the injury would be one which arises 'out of employment'."
Orissa High Court Cites 6 - Cited by 1 - P K Misra - Full Document

The United Ins Co Ltd vs Mrs Nanda Ramu Vaval And Ors on 7 September, 2021

"16.2. The case of Mackinnon Machenzie & Co. (P) Ltd. v. Ibrahim Mahmmed Issak is also relevant to understand the meaning of "arising out of employment". Ramaswami, J. delivering the judgment for a three-Judge Bench of this Court held:(SCC p.611, para 5) "5......The words 'arising out of employment' are understood to mean that 'during the course of the employment, injury has resulted from some risk incidental to the duties of the service, which, unless engaged in the duty owing to the master, it is reasonable to believe the workman would not otherwise have suffered'. In other words, there must be a causal relationship between the accident and the employment. The expression 'arising out of employment' is again not confined to the mere nature of the employment. The expression applies to employment as such to its nature, its conditions, its obligations and its incidents. If by reason of any of those factors the workman is brought within the zone of special danger the injury would be one which arises 'out of employment'.
Bombay High Court Cites 12 - Cited by 0 - R G Avachat - Full Document
1   2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next