The Doctrine of Added Peril is a nuanced legal concept that plays a pivotal role in the realm of labor law, particularly within the context of worker compensation claims. This doctrine serves as a critical defense mechanism for employers, delineating the boundaries of their liability in cases where an employee sustains injuries during the course of employment.
Evolution and Purpose
The doctrine emerged from the legislative intent to improve the working conditions of employees, as reflected in the Workmen Compensation Act of 1923. The Act was designed to provide compensation to employees who suffered injuries while performing their duties, ensuring they could cover treatment expenses and maintain their livelihood. However, it also introduced the concept of added peril to limit employer liability under specific circumstances.
Meaning and Application
The term “added peril” refers to situations where an employee engages in activities that are not part of their contractual duties, resulting in increased danger. If an employee, while performing their job, undertakes an action that is not required and involves excess risk, any resulting injury does not obligate the employer to provide compensation. This principle is invoked as a defense by the employer when the employee’s actions, which are not mandated by their role, lead to injury.
Arising Out of Employment
A key consideration in applying this doctrine is whether the injury arose “out of employment.” This encompasses the conditions, obligations, and incidents associated with the job. If an injury occurs while fulfilling these aspects of employment, it is considered to have arisen out of employment. Conversely, if the injury results from an added peril, the employer is typically not held liable
Legal Tests for Applicability
To determine the applicability of the doctrine, several questions are posed:
- Did the injury arise out of employment?
- Was the injury sustained while performing any contractual obligations or conditions?
- Was the act that resulted in injury required by the employer and did it involve danger during the course of employment?
Case Law Interpretations
The judicial interpretation of the doctrine has further clarified its scope and application. Notable cases include:
R. B Moondra & Co. v. Mrs. Bhanwari And Another
This case highlighted that the negligence of the workman is irrelevant if the act performed was within the scope of employment. The court held that the use of petrol by a workman for cleaning grease from his hands, which led to an accident, arose out of his employment since it was not expressly or impliedly prohibited.
Mackinnon Mackenzie And Co. (P) Ltd. v. Ibrahim Mahmmed Issak
The Supreme Court of India elucidated that if the cause of the workman’s injury was within the sphere of employment, or was an ordinary risk of the employment, or reasonably incidental to the employment, then the injury is considered to have arisen out of employment. Conversely, if the injury was due to an added peril outside the scope of employment, the employer would not be liable.
Conclusion
The Doctrine of Added Peril is instrumental in distinguishing between the responsibilities of employers and employees regarding workplace safety. It acts as a safeguard for employers against unwarranted claims and encourages employees to refrain from engaging in unnecessarily risky behaviors.