LABOUR

WELFARE
ASSIGNMENT

MADE BY: ZUBER KHAN

COURSE/YEAR: BBA,5TH
SEMESTER
SECTION B
CASE ANALYSIS : MR SAWANT'S LIABILITY

Mr. Sawant has employed a driver whose wages are reimbursed by the company. Mr. Sawant
has an Act-only policy covering his private car. While driving the vehicle after dropping Mr.
Sawant at his office, the vehicle collides with a truck and the driver dies on the spot. Being an
old car, Mr. Sawant had nothing much to lose and that is why he has not taken a comprehensive
policy. However, the family of the driver lost their income source.

QUESTION 1: Is Mr. Sawant liable to pay compensation to the dependants of the driver?
Specifically state the relevant provisions of the Act under which he is liable.

QUESTION 2: If the post-mortem reported an unacceptable level of alcohol in the driver, will
Mr. Sawant be liable to pay compensation? Why or Why not?

ANSWER 1 : YES, Mr. Sawant will be liable to pay compensation to the dependants of the
driver. Under the WORKMEN COMPENSATION ACT 1923 under section 10(1)(A)

SECTION 10(1)(A) in respect to the death of the if the claim is 6 preferred] in respect of the
death of a workman resulting from an accident which occurred on the premises of the employer,
or at any place where the workman at the time of the accident was working under the control of
the employer or of any person employed by him, and the workman died on such premises or at
such place, or on any premises belonging to the employer, or died without having left the vicinity
of the premises or place where the accident occurred.

ANSWER 2 : If the post-mortem reported an unacceptable level of alcohol in the driver. Mr.
Sawant will not be liable to pay compensation to the dependants of the driver as the WORKMEN
COMPENSATION ACT 1923 states that " IF THE CAUSE OF DEATH IS RELATED TO
DRUGS OR ALCOHOL THEN ONE IS NOT LIABLE TO PAY ANY AMOUT OF
COMPENSATION OF THE DEPENDENTS OF THE PERSON DEAD DUE TO THE
ACCIDENT".
CASE ANALYSIS : THE PROVIDENT FUND SCHEME AT METALLICA
STRUCTURALS.

Metallica Structural's Private Limited is a company in the construction business. The annual
turnover is INR 25 billion and it has 500 employees on its rolls, most of them being engineers
and technicians. Due to a competitive market, the firm does its best to retain top talent and,
therefore, most of the employees draw fixed salary of more than INR 10,000 per month. The
Managing Director, Mr. Shashikant, one day, while going through the morning correspondence,
saw a letter addressed to him by the Metallica Diploma Engineers Association amongst other
things, the letter mentioned a "demand" from its members to become a member of the Provident
Fund Scheme. Mr. Shashikant remembered having told by a consultant that Metallica was not
obliged to make any contributions under provident fund.

Going through the provisions of the relevant Act, can you suggest a line of argument that Mr.
Shashikant may take while discussing the issue with the Diploma Engineers?

ANSWER : Mr. Shashikant may take up the argument that, Being in a PRIVATE LIMITED
COMPANY it's important for every employee to contribute to the provident fund of the
company. As the company says that it's not obliged to make any contribution under the provident
fund, it automatically makes the member of the provident fund scheme of the company by
contributing certain amount of money from their basic salary of 10,000 per month.