Doctrine of Notional Extension

The principal behind compensation to the injured worker under the Employees State Insurance Act 1948 and Workmens Compensation Act, 1923 is considered according to the Doctrine of Notional Extension. This doctrine throws light on the course of employment of a worker.

Section 3(1) Workmens Compensation Act, 1923 provides that the injury must be caused to workman by an accident arising out of and in the course of employment. Employment does not necessarily ends when the tool down signal is given or when the workman leaves the actual workshop. There is a notional extension at both the entry and exit time and space. As employment may end or may begin not only when the employee begins to work or leaves his tools but also when he used the means of access and egress to and from the place of employment.

 As a rule, the employment of a workman does not commence until he has reached the place of employment and does not continue when he has left the place of employment, the journey to and from the place of employment being excluded. It is now well-settled, however, that this is subject to the theory of notional extension of the employers premises so as to include an area which the workman passes and repasses in going to and in leaving the actual place of work. There may be some reasonable extension in both time and place and a workman may be regarded as in the course of his employment even though he had not reached or had left his employers premises. The facts and circumstances of each case will have to be examined very carefully in order to determine whether the accident arose out of and in the course of the employment of a workman, keeping in view at all times this theory of notional extension.

 Various judgments of Supreme court and different high Courts have considered the concept of notional employment and said that if the employee dies due to accident while going to work place from residence or while returning from work place to residence, as an accident arising out of and during the course of employment and as such entitled for compensation in accordance with provisions of the Workmens Compensation Act, 1923.

DOCTRINE OF ADDED PERIL

This doctrine is contrary to the doctrine of notion extension. While the doctrine of notional extension benefits to the employee, the doctrine of added peril is for the benefit to the employer. It contemplates that if a workman while doing his masters work undertakes to do something which he is not ordinarily called upon to do and which involves extra danger he cannot hold his master liable for the risk arising there

 The doctrine of added peril is dis-entitled an injured worker from compensation on the ground that he had taken a greater risk than he had been required by his employer to assume. Therefore, where the injury is not caused to workman by an accident arising out of and in the course of employment, he/she is not entitled to get any benefit or compensation under the Employees State Insurance Act 1948 and the Workmens Compensation Act, 1923