#Workmen’s Compensation Act

MP High Court rules that cardiac arrest triggered by employment-related stress and fatigue during long-distance driving qualifies as an 'accidental death' under the Employees' Compensation Act, 1923. The judgment reinforces that employers are liable for compensation where a causal nexus exists between work conditions and fatal health events, even in the absence of external injury.

The Madhya Pradesh High Court ruled that above-thigh amputation warrants 70% disability assessment under Schedule I of the Workmen’s Compensation Act, rejecting the tribunal’s 50% assessment. The court also mandated 40% future prospects addition to income, enhancing compensation under the Pranay Sethi framework for victims with undocumented earnings.

The Bombay High Court upheld compensation for a driver injured in an accident, ruling that oral evidence and the employer’s own admission can establish an employment relationship under the Workmen’s Compensation Act - even without pay slips or written contracts, and despite the parties being related. This clarifies that welfare legislation prioritizes substantive employment realities over formal documentation, protecting vulnerable workers in informal arrangements.

The Himachal Pradesh High Court ruled that an employer’s liability under the Workmen’s Compensation Act arises from factual employment, irrespective of formal records. The ESI Act’s bar applies only if the deceased was an insured person, ensuring compensation for dependents even in informal employment scenarios.