Influence of alcohol / drug - does employee entitle to claim wc
prashant1314
(Querist) 05 September 2011
This query is : Resolved
Dear Seniors,
If the employee under the influence of Alcohol / Drug if meets an accident then can he claim under WC ?
What are the provisions are available for employer to reject the claim?
Raj Kumar Makkad
(Expert) 05 September 2011
No. In the given facts, such employee is not entitled to claim any compensation from employee of his own fault. Employer is not responsible for any illegal act of claimant injured employee.
prashant1314
(Querist) 05 September 2011
Dear Sir,
Can we say alternatively that even though the person got Total Permanent Disablement or Death is also not entitle to claim the Compensation?
prabhakar singh
(Expert) 05 September 2011
No ,WE can not say so as you are assuming!
3. EMPLOYER'S LIABILITY FOR COMPENSATION............................................................................
Provided that the employer shall not be so liable -(a)................................
(b) in respect of any injury, not resulting in death or permanent total disablement, caused by an accident which is directly attributable to - (i) the workman having been at the time thereof under the influence of drink or drugs, or
(ii) the willful disobedience of the workman to an order expressly given, or to a rule expressly framed, for the purpose of securing the safety of workmen, or
(iii) the willful removal or disregard by the workman of any safety guard or other device which he knew to have been provided for the purpose of securing the safety of workmen,
prabhakar singh
(Expert) 05 September 2011
", not resulting in death or permanent total disablement, "
while we take it out we can assume what you say ,as at then it would read
"(b) in respect of any injury caused by an accident which is directly attributable to - (i) the workman having been at the time thereof under the influence of drink or drugs,"
But when we read it as it is the word "NOT"
becomes governor of the whole clause", not resulting in death or permanent total disablement, "
Raj Kumar Makkad
(Expert) 05 September 2011
Law do not recognise sentiments rather it is static. You can pray to employer to do help on humanitarian bases instead of your legal right.
prabhakar singh
(Expert) 05 September 2011
My view is that if the accident has resulted in death or permanent disability of the workman then if it is attributable to the workman that it was caused due to his being under influence of drink or drug,compensation shall be given to him.
Raj Kumar Makkad
(Expert) 05 September 2011
How and under which law such employee is entitled prabhakar singh ji? Can you cite any case llaw in support of your reply? If yes, please let me know so that I may amend my knowledge.
K.S.Srinivas
(Expert) 05 September 2011
I agree with the views of expert Makkad.
V.Harikrishnan
(Expert) 06 September 2011
Dear All
Under the Workmens Compensation Act, now renamed as the Employees Compensation Act, the employers liability to pay compensation is absolute even if the worker was under the influence of drinks or alcohol or drugs at the time of accident and if the accident has resulted in his death or permanent total disablement. In case the accident has not resulted either in death or in his permanent total disablement, the employer is not liable if the worker was under the influence of drinks or drugs at the time of the accident.
With regards
V.HARIKRISHNAN
Joint Commissioner of Labour(Retired)
Government of Tamilnadu
Advocate and Labour Law Consultant
prashant1314
(Querist) 06 September 2011
Dear All Experts,
Thanks a lot for your enlightening responses.
prabhakar singh
(Expert) 06 September 2011
Dear Mr. Makkad !!
I have never practiced labor laws and my opinion was based on perusal and interpretation of the section quoted by me here in above after looking your first answer.
Soon after your answer the author put a second question which in his words was:
"Can we say alternatively that even though the person got Total Permanent Disablement or Death is also not entitle to claim the Compensation?"
His this question led me to look into the provision it self before opining, hence in first post i posted the provision it self
and in just following post the interpretation there of in a healthy way so that any body may either stood corrected or may correct me.
Then you came to post an opinion not found convincing to me.
hence in turn i posted my view to reiterate my earlier view which you unfortunately could not digest and demanded some case law which i neither had nor thought to be needed as per my understanding of the language used in the section because had there been legislative intent as what you view words ", not resulting in death or permanent total disablement, " COULD HAVE NEVER BEEN USED by the legislators.
I was already depressed by my one silly mistake rightly pointed out by Mr. Ramachandran over a fractional calculation of share in a muslim case of inheritance where my understanding of law was correct but the arithmetic was wrong which i could not understand until i received a private message from him.
So on your bombard i got so confused that
i made me to think that not only my arithmetic but also understanding of law is too poor to make my stand correct before you.
But today i have a supportive view from one of our expert V.HARIKRISHNAN Labour Law Consultant,hence submitting the matter for your kind reconsideration.
