Understanding the Doctrine of Added Peril

The Doctrine of Added Peril is a pivotal legal concept in Indian labour law, providing a crucial defence for employers in worker compensation claims. This doctrine is especially relevant under the frameworks of the Employees’ State Insurance Act, 1948 and the Workmen’s Compensation Act, 1923, which generally obligate employers to compensate for injuries that occur “out of and in the course of employment.”

What is Doctrine of Added Peril?

The doctrine of added peril is a principle applied in Indian worker compensation cases. It acts as a defence for employers in situations where an employee gets injured. It essentially limits an employer’s liability when an employee gets injured on the job.

Here’s a breakdown of the doctrine:

• Employer’s Responsibility: The Employees’ State Insurance Act, 1948 and the Workmen’s Compensation Act, 1923 generally mandate employers to compensate workers for injuries arising “out of and in the course of employment.”
• Added Peril: This doctrine comes into play when an employee, while performing their job duties, engages in an activity that:
  • Is not part of their regular duties.
  • Involves a significantly higher risk of injury than their normal tasks.
• Employer Not Liable: If an employee gets injured due to this added peril, the employer may not be responsible for providing compensation under the aforementioned acts. The rationale is that the injury wasn’t caused by a risk inherent to the employee’s regular job.

The Legal Foundation of the Doctrine of Added Peril

In Indian law, the obligation for employers to ensure worker safety and provide compensation for job-related injuries is well-established. However, the Doctrine of Added Peril introduces the principle by delineating the boundaries of employer responsibility in labour law. The doctrine is applied when an employee, during the course of their duties, engages in an activity that:

• Is not part of their regular job responsibilities.
• Involves a substantially greater risk than the usual tasks associated with their employment.

Under such circumstances, if an injury occurs due to this “added peril,” the employer may be exempt from the liability of compensation. The rationale behind this is that the injury did not result from risks inherent to the employee’s job but from risks the employee independently assumed.

Employer’s Responsibility and Scope of the Doctrine

Employers are mandated by law to provide a safe working environment and to compensate for injuries that are directly related to employment. However, when an employee steps beyond the scope of their official duties and undertakes risky activities not required by their job, the legal landscape shifts. Here, the employer’s liability is mitigated because the risk was neither sanctioned nor part of the employment requirements.

Legal Implications and Employer Liability

The application of this doctrine is particularly relevant in industries where the nature of work can involve hazardous conditions. Employers are generally expected to ensure a safe working environment and provide adequate training and safety measures. However, if an employee deviates from standard operations or safe practices, leading to an accident or injury, the Doctrine of Added Peril can shield employers from liability.

For example, in a manufacturing setting, if an employee decides to operate machinery in a manner not sanctioned by their employer or safety protocols and sustains an injury, the employer can invoke this doctrine as a defence, arguing that the employee’s actions constituted an added peril.

Case Studies and Judicial Interpretations

Devidayal Ralyaram vs. Secretary of State

In this notable case, a fitter employed at a manufacturing facility sustained permanent injuries after he went under an operating machine to collect scrap metal—a task not included in his job description. The court ruled that since the employee’s actions were prohibited and outside his duties, the injuries were solely due to his independent actions. This decision underscores the doctrine’s role in clarifying that employer liability extends only to those risks that are inherent in the job or explicitly assigned.

Lancashire and Yorkshire Railway Co. v. Highley

This case involved a railway employee who was killed while taking a shortcut through the train tracks instead of the designated path to a messroom. The court found that the employee’s decision to take a dangerous route was a personal choice and not a requirement of his employment. Consequently, the court applied the Doctrine of Added Peril, indicating that the accident was a result of personal negligence rather than an occupational hazard.

Tamil Nadu Civil Supplies Corporation, Ltd. v. S. Poomalai

The court here expanded on the notion that injuries must directly arise from employment duties to qualify for compensation. It was held that the injury must be a result of employment conditions or responsibilities and if an accident occurs due to a risk that is not an incident of employment, the employee’s claim may not be successful. This case highlighted the importance of distinguishing between general occupational risks and those created by personal disregard for safety.

R. B Moondra & Co. v. Mrs. Bhanwari And Another

This judgment clarified that even if an employee’s actions are reckless, as long as they fall within the scope of employment responsibilities, the Doctrine of Added Peril does not apply. The court recognised that the use of petrol by a worker for cleaning purposes was not prohibited and was related to his job, thereby ruling that the resulting accident was indeed an occupational hazard.

Conclusion

The Doctrine of Added Peril is pivotal in distinguishing between employer and employee responsibilities regarding workplace safety. It serves as a safeguard for employers against unjust claims but also acts as a deterrent for employees against engaging in unnecessarily risky behaviours.

Understanding this doctrine is essential for both employers and legal practitioners to navigate the complexities of workplace-related injuries and compensation claims. Through careful analysis of duties and adherence to safety protocols, both parties can mitigate the risks and implications associated with added perils in the workplace.