Summary
S who was employed as a deck-hand on a ship was found missing on board. The respondent filed an application under s. 3 of the Workmen's Compensation Act claiming compensation for the death of S which according to him occurred on account of a personal injury caused by an accident arising out of and in the course of employment. The Additional Commissioner held that there was no evidence to show that the seaman was dead and there was in any event no evidence to justify the inference that the death of the seaman was caused by an accident which arose out of employment. The High Court reversed the judgment of the Additional Commissioner. In appeal to this Court,
HELD: The Additional Commissioner did not commit any error of law in reaching his findings and the High Court was not justified in reversing them.To come within the Act the injury by accident must arise both out of and in the course of employment. The words "in the course of employment" mean in the course of work which the workman is employed to do and which is incidental to it.The words "arising out of the 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. The expression is not confined to the mere nature of the employment but applies to the employment as such--to its nature, its conditions, its obligations and its incidents. [872 H]Although the onus of proving that the injury by accident arose both out of and in the course of employment rests upon the applicant these essentials may be inferred when the facts proved justify the inference. On the one hand the Commissioner must not surmise, conjecture or guess; on the other hand he may draw an inference from the proved facts so long as it is a legitimate inference. The evidence must be such as would induce a reasonable man to draw the inference.[873 H]Lancashire and Yorkshire Railway Co. v. Highley, [1917]A.C. 352, Lancaster v. Blackwell Colliery Co. Ltd. 1918 W.C.Rep. 345, Kerr or Lendrum v. Ayr Steam Shipping Ca. Ltd.[1915] A.C. 217, Bender v. Owners of S.S. "Zeni" [1909] '2K.B. 41, Marshall v. Owners of S.S. "Wild Rose", [1909] 2K.B. 46, Rice v. Owners of Ship "Swansea Vale", [1912] A.C.238, Gatton v. Limerick Steamship Co. [1910] 2 I.R. 561, Rourke v. Hold & Co. [1917] 2 Ir. Rep. 318 at 321 and Simpson v. L.M. & S. Railway Co. [1931] A.C. 351, referredSee the full content of this document
Extract
Mackinnon Mackenzie & Co. Pvt. Ltd. VS. Ibrahim Mahommed Issak
PETITIONER: MACKINNON MACKENZIE & CO. PVT. LTD.Vs.RESPONDENT: IBRAHIM MAHOMMED ISSAKDATE OF JUDGMENT: 14/08/1969BENCH: RAMASWAMI, V.BENCH: RAMASWAMI, V.SHAH, J.C. (CJ)GROVER, A.N.CITATION: 1970 AIR 1906 1970 SCR (1) 869 1969 SCC (2) 607CITATOR INFO : RF 1991 SC1771 (26)ACT: Workmen's Compensation Act 18 of 1923, s. 3--"In the course employment"--"Arising out of employment", meaning of.JUDGMENT: CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 850 of 1966.870 Appeal by special leave from the judgment and decree dated March 5, 1965 of the Bombay High Court in First Appeal No. of 1963.S. Sorabli, Bhuvanesh Kumari and J.B. Dadachanji, for the appellant.The respondent did not appear.The Judgment of the Court was delivered by Ramaswami, J. This appeal is brought by special leave fro.m the judgment of the. Bombay High Court dated March 5, 1965 in Appeal No. 415 of 1963.Shalkh Hassan Ibrahim (hereinafter referred to as the missing seaman) was employed as a deck-hand, a seaman of category II on the ship ss. "Dwarka" which is owned by the British India Steam Navigation Company Limited of which the appellant is the Agent. The Medical Log Book of the shop shows that on December 13, 1961 the missing seaman complained of pain in the...
See the full content of this document