Author: Vedant Choudhary is a student of law at Symbiosis Law School, Pune.
The Employee Compensation Act is the principal statute for the compensation of employees for injuries arising out of employment. This article seeks to understand whether Myocardial Infarction, commonly known as “Heart Attack” falls within the scope of injury under the ECA, and whether heart attacks can give rise to claim of compensation under the ECA. “Heart attacks” find no mention as an injury under the Act. However, the jurisprudence has established a “triple-test” centred on the “Stress-Strain” principle. Further, in light of rising cases of heart attacks at the workplace, and rising levels of stress in emerging industries, it has become imperative to widen the scope of industries to which the act applies.
The Employee Compensation Act (ECA), 1923, previously known as the Workmen Compensation Act, is the principal statute for the compensation of employees for injuries from accidents arising out of, and in the course of employment. [section 3 of the ECA] The Act itself lists several injuries [see Schedule I of the Act] and occupational diseases [see Schedule III of the Act], which simplifies adjudicating on the claims raised under this Act. This post is a discussion on heart attack as an ailment under this act. Notably, heart attack as an injury is not listed within the list of injuries or diseases, however, since the list is not exhaustive, heart attacks may give rise to claims under this act. In this context, this post studies the liability of employers, when an employee suffers a heart attack within employment.
The question of heart attacks giving rise to a claim under this act is of growing relevance. As work-induced stress is on the rise, the risk of cardiovascular diseases is consequently on the rise. This necessitates a broader discussion of “injuries” under the ECA. Further, with a boom in the Information Technology and Information Technology sector in India, work-induced stress has risenIn this context too, looking at cardiovascular disease, especially heart attack is of relevance.
This post proceeds in the following fashion. First, this post will study the elements required for a cause of action for compensation under this Act. Subsequently, this post will study whether heart attack as an “ailment” can fall within the scope of injury under this Act, and understand the existing jurisprudence on the point. The author finally discusses the heart attack in the context of the Information Technology sector in India.
Basic Framework under the Act
Section 3 of the ECA delineates the liability of employers for compensation under the Act. A plain reading of section 3 reveals two essentials required to establish an employer’s liability (for compensation) under the Act. These are:
- An injury caused to the employee by an accident AND;
- Such accident must arise out of and in the course of employment
Liability against the employer arises in cases where the above elements are met, and the facts do not fall within any exception under section 3. Furthering section 3, the Act also enlists within Schedule III (Parts A, B, and C) a list of a number of occupational diseases and injuries. However, the list of injuries and diseases is not exhaustive. Section 3(4) makes this clear.
“Save as provided by sub-sections (2), (2A)] and (3) no compensation shall be payable to a employee in respect of any disease unless the disease is directly attributable to a specific injury by accident arising out of and in the course of his employment.”
Clearly, even in cases beyond those enlisted in Schedule III, the same twin test is to be followed as mentioned above (injury-accident test).
Heart Attacks
A claim for compensation for heart attack within employment arises under section 22 of the ECA, read with the above section, sec. 3(4). For a heart attack to give rise to compensation, it must fall within the test above. (injury-accident test) First, it must fall within the scope of injury as required under section 3. Injury has been defined as any “physiological injury” in Jyothi Ademma v. Plant Engineer, this definition has been affirmed in Shakuntala Shreshti. In both the above cases, the court included heart attacks within the scope of injury, hence satisfying the first element under section 3.
The next element required to establish compensation against the employer is that the injury must be caused due to an accident. Accident has been defined as an “unlooked-for mishap or an untoward event which is not expected or designed.” (Fenton v. Thorley) This definition has been affirmed in Jyothi Ademma. Aditionally, accident has been defined as “an accident means any unintended and unexpected occurrence which produces hurt or loss.”(Lord Lindley) This definition has been affirmed by the Supreme Court in Shakuntala Shreshti. In Shakuntala Shreshti while discussing a heart attack as an injury, the court points out three factors that must be present in order to constitute an “accident” in cases of a heart attack. These are:
- Stress and Strain during the Course of Employment
- The nature of employment being such that would give rise to Stress and Strain
- The injury aggravated due to Stress and Strain arising out of the employment
In the first factor, “stress and strain during the course of employment,” the phrase in the course of employment has come to mean, “in the course of the work which the workman is employed to do and which is incidental to it.” (Mackinnon Mackenzie para 5) Although the Supreme Court has frequently held that the Workmen Compensation Act is a social welfare legislation and therefore has adopted a liberal view of the provisions. In Mallikarjuna G. Hiremath, the employee while travelling as per directions of the employer, stopped to take bath at a pond where he slipped and fell. The Supreme Court held that this injury did not arise out of course of employment.
Second, the court has also frequently denied compensation in cases of heart attacks, on the ground that the employment was not in a nature that would give rise to “stress and strain”. In Jyothi Ademma the court noted that where the employee was in an employment which required him to merely “switch on or off” certain machinery, this could not constitute stress and strain arising out of employment.
Finally, in General Manager Gun Carriage, the Madhya Pradesh High Court, while noting Jyothi Ademma (para 8), mentioned that the appellants (employers) must provide evidence showing the employee had a history of heart ailment. In this case, the appellants failed to do so, leading the court to dismiss the appeal. In a similar scenario before the Madras High Court, the court held that the Heart Attack didn’t need to be caused solely due to employment. Where the employee had a prevailing heart disease, the employer must establish that the employment was not strenuous enough to hasten a heart attack. (M/s Chennai Corporation)
Way Forward
This post has discussed heart attacks in the context of a claim under the ECA. Although, a successful claim can be made under the ECA, there are two notable points in this regard. First, heart attack, as an injury is not listed within the framework of the act; and second, the ECA leaves out from within its fold, a number of upcoming and modern sectors. In 2010 the act was rechristened from the Workmen Compensation Act to the Employee Compensation Act, this makes the intent the legislature clear, i.e., that this act would not solely apply to factory workers and other manual labour. Instead, the scope would apply to “employees”, and not just “workmen”.
Schedule I of the Act, enlists the sectors/industries to which the act applies to. The list does not mention several upcoming and modern industries, this allows employers within this industry to successfully escape liability. This omission is particularly glaring in light of the legislative intent to widen the scope of the act from workmen to employees. The past decade has seen a boom in a number of sectors and industries, outside the scope of “workmen.” Without the inclusion of these sectors within the scope of the Act, employers in these sectors can conveniently escape liability. This is more so problematic, when the intent of the legislature is to apply the act to “employees” and not just “workmen.”
Take for example an employee in the Information Technology (IT) sector, suffering from heart attack. Even if the employee, or applicant representing the employee is successful in establishing the triple test, his/her claim would fail since the Act does not apply to IT sector.
Inclusion of modern industries and sectors is the need of the hour. With the rise in IT, and IT enabled services, there has been a blurring of working and non-working hours, which consequently leads to a rise in stress, which further leads to a rise in risk of cardiovascular diseases (including heart attack). Another important consideration in including heart attacks within the act is that the Workmen Act has physiological injuries related to traditional occupations. However, over the past two decades, a significant technological revolution has occured where physical stress maybe minimal, but measurable mental stress has increased.
Leave a Reply