Theory of Notional Extension of Employment.
Theory of notional extension of employment, To make the employer liable, it is necessary that the injury caused by an accident must have arisen in the course of employment i.e. the accident must take place at a time and place when he was doing his employer’s job.
According to Theory of Notional Extension, the employer is liable in certain circumstances for the injury caused to his workers even when he is away from the premises at the time of the accident.
X. an employee of a factory, after finishing up his day’s work was going on a cycle to collect his pay from the cash section of the factory which was situated on the other side of the road. On the way, he was knocked down by a speeding bus and died.
The movement of X, in the present case, from the factory to the cash section, is deemed to be in the course of employment. As such, the death occurred during the course of his employment and the employer would be liable to pay compensation to his legal representative.
An employer provides transport facilities to a workman for coming to, and going from, the place of employment. The time during which the workman uses the transport is included in the course of his employment If an accident occurs on the way while in such transport, this will be considered a to be an extension of employer’s premises and done in the course of employment.
A workman, while returning home after performing his duty, was murdered within the premises of the employer. It was held that there was causal and. proximate connection between the accident and the employment since the workman was on the spot only for his employment and his wife was entitled for compensation.
An employee of the Railway was knocked down and killed by a train while returning from duty by crossing the platform area. The accident arose out of and in the course of employment.
A Salesman held to be an employee within the meaning of the Act was directed by the employer to attend a sales conference. He wag injured while travelling by a train. It was held that the accident arose out of and in the course of employment.
A factory worker was suffering from a heart disease. He used to work for hours in the factory. While coming out of the factory, he profusely sweated and died of heart failure. The stress and strain of work were the accelerating factors to the worker’s death. It was held that the accident arose out of and in the course of employment.
A railway employee was ordered to travel to a particular station to repair a water main. After finishing the work, he was crossing the platform to catch the train, he slipped and died. It was held that the accident arose out of and in the course of employment.
An employee lifted a G. L pipe in order to keep it at a safe place in the course of his duty. He received some injury while doing so. It was held that the injury arose out of and in the course of employment.
A mill worker was stabbed in communal riot while he was returning home after the night shift and died just a short distance from the mill. it was held that the death arose out of and in the course of employment.
The driver had gone to the village in the jeep with the officer of the bank on official duty. There was assault on the driver and died while he was on duty. There was tense situation in the village on account of recovery proceedings. It was held that the death arose out of and in the course of employment.
The period of rest within the employer’s premises is also included in the course of employment. When a workman is on a public road or a public place or on public transport, he is there like any other member of the public unless the very nature of his employment makes it necessary for him to be there. He shall not be considered in the course of employment. The theory of notional extension of the place of employment terminates when the workman reaches a public road.