Facts of the Case
A workman was employed in a manufacturing unit that involved exposure to hazardous materials and flying particles. The employer, being aware of the risks, provided protective gear, including special industrial spectacles, to all workers handling sensitive equipment.
On one particular day, the workman performed his duties without wearing the protective spectacles. While operating a cutting machine, a sharp metal fragment struck his eye. The injury resulted in complete and permanent loss of eyesight in one eye. The employer admitted that the injury occurred during work hours but argued that the workman ignored safety instructions.
They claimed that since the protective gear was available and the workman failed to use it, the responsibility for the accident lay with him alone.
Issues of the Case
- Is the employer still liable to pay compensation when the workman did not use the safety equipment provided?
- Does the negligence of the workman affect his right to compensation under the Employees’ Compensation Act, 1923?
- Can contributory negligence fully or partially bar a workman from claiming benefits?
Principles and Related Case Laws
The Employees’ Compensation Act, 1923, imposes a duty on employers to compensate workers for injuries arising “out of and in the course of employment.” It doesn’t explicitly exclude compensation where the employee is partially at fault.
Key Principle: No Complete Bar Due to Negligence
Indian courts have repeatedly held that negligence by the worker does not automatically disqualify them from receiving compensation. The core requirement is that the injury must arise during employment and be connected to the nature of the work.
Case Law: Usha Behera v. Steel Authority of India Ltd. (2015)
In this case, a similar argument was made by the employer that the employee failed to follow safety protocols. The Orissa High Court ruled in favor of the injured, stating that mere negligence does not remove the employer’s liability unless there is willful disobedience or intoxication.
The negligence of the workman may reduce moral sympathy but does not alter the legal position if the injury occurred during the course of employment. The intention behind compensation laws is to provide relief, not punishment.
Case Law: Mackinnon Mackenzie & Co. Pvt. Ltd. v. Ibrahim Mahmmod Issak (1969)
The Supreme Court held that once it is established that the accident occurred during the course of employment, the employer cannot escape liability by blaming the employee’s negligence.
Judgement
Based on the legal provisions and precedents, the workman is entitled to compensation despite failing to wear the protective spectacles. The employer’s duty to compensate remains intact because:
- The injury clearly occurred during the course of employment.
- The employer did not prove willful disobedience or misconduct.
- The law does not make exceptions for contributory negligence unless it involves gross misconduct.
The court would likely direct the employer to pay full compensation for permanent disability, including medical costs, rehabilitation support, and loss of earning capacity.
