This article is written by Shruti Kumari pursuing US Contract Drafting and Paralegal Studies from LawSikho.

This Article is published by Anshi Mudgal.

Introduction

Accidents take place every day, people get injured, and property is damaged. When accidents happen, one of the first questions people typically ask is: “Who was at fault?” Under the concept of workplace injuries, the question that is raised is whether it is the employer or the employee. And we are going to understand this below, along with India’s tort law.

Workplace injury can also be defined in an analogous way as an accident or other injury caused by one party to the other, and it constitutes physical falls, like slips, machinery accidents, or exposure to harmful materials and/or psychological injury that an employee might suffer during their employment under the employer. We have multiple laws, regulations and forums that provide numerous ways for protecting employees, for their monetary benefits, legal protection under statutory and tort law. Like the  Employee’s Compensation Act, 1923, and the Employees’ State Insurance Act, 1948, for compensation benefits, while tort law allows for further claims, particularly in cases of employer negligence.

The word tort is derived from the Latin term ‘Tortum’, which means ‘to twist’. Tort law in India is derived from English common law, addresses civil wrongs that are committed against individuals or their property. It involves acts and omissions that cause harm or injury, resulting in legal liability for the responsible party and providing the rights of compensation to the injured party. In the context of workplace injuries, it provides a framework for employees to seek damages from employers or third parties for negligence, strict liability, or vicarious liability.

Understanding workplace injuries

Workplace injuries significantly affect both employees and employers. Employees suffer physical pain, emotional trauma, and financial hardship due to medical expenses and loss of income.

Common causes of workplace injuries

1. Trips, Slips and Falls: Wet floors, uneven surfaces, and poor lighting can lead to slip-and-fall accidents.
2. Lifting/Reaching/Pulling Injuries: Physical labour involves these activities. 
3. Machinery Accidents: Lack of training, faulty equipment, and inadequate safety measures can cause serious injuries.
4. Exposure to Hazardous Substances: Chemical spills, inhalation of toxic fumes, and radiation exposure can result in long-term health issues.
5. Manual Handling and Ergonomic Hazards: Improper lifting techniques and repetitive strain injuries can affect workers’ health.
6. Electrical and Fire Hazards: Poor electrical wiring and flammable materials can lead to electrocution and burns.

These incidents can result in temporary or permanent disability, impacting employees’ livelihoods and employers’ operations through legal liabilities and productivity losses. Occupational safety and health laws in India, such as the Factories Act, 1948, and the Mines Act, 1952, mandate employers to ensure safety measures like proper ventilation, lighting, and machinery maintenance, aiming to prevent such injuries.

Indian tort law: an overview

Everyone in this world is expected to behave properly and in a very straightforward manner, and when someone deviates from this straight path into crooked ways, he/she has committed a tort. Similarly, laws provide certain duties to an employer to take off its employees during working hours in the premises of the workplace; in case it fails to do so, then that brings workplace injuries, and the Indian Tort Law governs such breaches. Tort law in India reports civil wrongs and is a private wrong that contravenes the legal right of an individual or group. Section 2(m) of the Limitation Act, 1963 defines “Tort means a civil wrong which is not exclusively a breach of contract or breach of trust”.

1. Negligence occurs when an employer fails to take reasonable care to prevent workplace injuries. In Southern Railway v. Kartiyani (1994), the court held the railway authorities vicariously liable for the negligence of their employees, which led to a workplace accident. The judgment emphasised employers’ responsibility for workplace safety. 

2. The principle of Strict liability states that any person or party who holds or keeps hazardous substances on their premises will be held responsible if such substances escapes or seeps through the premises and causes any damage that is employers might be liable without proving negligence, while Absolute Liability concept was evolved in India by Justice Bhagwati ji in M.C. Mehta v. Union of India (1987), imposes no defenses, ensuring liability for any harm from hazardous and dangerous activities.

3. In Vicarious Liability and employers are liable for employees’ wrongful acts during employment. The principle of the master servant relationship or principal agent relationship is applicable.

Employers’ liability under tort law

Giving a proper and safe working environment to employees is the duty of the employer, including training, maintenance and safety systems. Failing to provide a proper working environment is a breach of duty of care by the employer and may be considered a serious offence.

• In Jyothi Ademma v. Plant Engineer, Nellore University (2006), the case involved the death of an employee due to electrocution while working at Nellore University. The Supreme Court held that the employer was liable for compensation as the death occurred during employment and was awarded compensation under the Workmen’s Compensation Act, 1923. 
• In Rylands v. Fletcher (1868) (adapted in India), the defendant built a reservoir on his land, which burst and flooded the plaintiff’s coal mine due to hidden defects. Blackburn(judge in the case) established the strict liability principle, holding that a person who brings and keeps dangerous substances on their land is liable for any damage.

 Vicarious liability in workplace injury cases

By law, an employer is held accountable for employees’ actions during the duration of their employment with the employer. It ensures that the injured party can claim compensation from the employer in case of an employee’s act. The intention of this principle is to ensure the accountability of the employer and protect the victims.

Important  case laws are: 

• In the State of Rajasthan v. Vidyawati (1962), the Supreme Court held the State vicariously liable, ruling that the government is not immune from tortious liability for negligence committed by its employees in non-sovereign functions.
• In Sitaram Motilal Kalal v. Santanuprasad Jaishankar Bhatt (1966), a servant negligently drove his master’s car and caused an accident, leading to injury. The Supreme Court held the master vicariously liable for the servant’s negligent act, as it was committed in the course of employment.

Strict and absolute liability in workplace injuries

Strict Liability applies mainly to the hazardous industries, industrial accidents, defective machinery and equipment, where mostly chemicals and harmful substances or faulty machinery or factories and plants, causing large-scale harm, were prevalent in use by the employees. Employers were liable to have safety measures at the top notch and protect the employees by providing a safe environment; in case of any negligence, employers were liable without proof.

• In the 1986 MC Mehta v. Union of India case (Bhopal Gas Tragedy), the Supreme Court introduced absolute liability, a stricter standard for hazardous industries. Unlike strict liability, no defences like contributory negligence apply, emphasising public safety over industrial interests.

Compensation mechanisms for workplace injuries

 Compensation options include:

Claims under the Employees’ Compensation Act, 1923

Provides statutory compensation for injuries or deaths, based on injury extent and wages, applicable to sectors like factories and mines. This Act provides no-fault compensation for workplace injuries, covering medical expenses and disability benefits.

Claims under the Employees’ State Insurance Act, 1948

Offers medical care and cash benefits for covered employees, but Section 53 bars claims under other laws, including tort, for employment injuries.

Role of tort law

For non-ESI employees, Section 3(5) of the Employee’s Compensation Act allows choosing between statutory claims or tort damages, but not both. This ensures flexibility but requires strategic decision-making.

Defences available to employers

Employers can raise general defences like:

Contributory negligence 

If an employee’s negligence contributes to the injury (e.g., ignoring safety protocols), compensation may be reduced proportionately.

Volenti Non-Fit Injuria (consent to risk) 

It is an important condition is that the parties agree by statement or by conduct to suffer the consequences of the risk without any compulsion or threat, and employers bring this as an argument for employees voluntarily accepting the work without any objection.

Vis Major, i.e., Act of God

This means that the accidents that occur because of an unforeseen natural event. In Nichols v Marsland (1876), the court decided that overflowing the lake was due to the Act of God and therefore the plaintiff’s claim was rejected by the court.

Inevitable accident 

This means that something which is not in control, or the employer, was not in a position to control the accident.

Challenges in workplace injury claims in India

Workplace injuries can be a nightmare for both the injured employee and the company or employer. Therefore, having essential safety measures is so important in the workplace premises, and this should be communicated to the employees through various training programs. However, workplace injury can occur as a direct result of negligence, and at other times, an injury may not necessarily be caused by a negligent act. In any of these situations, you need to know your first steps and rights as an employee, you have provided by the law.

Major challenges are:

• Complex legal compliance and regulatory challenges that keep changing on a day-to-day basis.
• Meticulous claim documentation and record keeping for the insurance claim or medical claim.
• Many malicious claims and misrepresentations are made by the employees to challenge their identity.
• Lengthy dispute resolution mechanisms and complex litigation procedures.
• Employees are not aware of their rights, are uneducated and are unaware of their privileges.

Need for legal reforms and strengthening workplace safety

Enhancing workplace safety and health regulations plays a crucial role in India. Currently, there has been legislation and a statutory framework with gaps in strict safety enforcement measures and very outdated compensation mechanisms for the employees. There is a strict requirement of having a strict and monitoring compliance framework, modernising laws as per new workplace premises and environment, streamlining workers’ protection and improving financial strain, bringing awareness about their rights and claim pursuits.

Conclusion

Tort is a violation of right in rem(right against the world at large) through negligence, vicarious liability, and strict liability principles, offering a critical avenue for justice. Workplace injuries pose significant risks to employees, and Indian tort law plays a crucial role in confirming damages and justice. Employees and employers must understand their rights and duties to encourage safety and ensure fair costs, promoting stronger regulations to address evolving workplace challenges.

Frequently Asked Questions (FAQs)

What is the role of Indian tort law in workplace injury cases?

The law in India provides a compensatory remedy for workplace injuries, focusing on the cases related to negligence or breach of duty by the employer, beyond statutory limits for non-ESI employees.

What is the difference between negligence and vicarious liability in workplace injury cases?

Law defines negligence as an act of failure by the party who fails to ensure the safety of its employees. The Latin term is ‘Nonfeasance’, which means not doing an act which you are supposed to do, while vicarious liability means liability of a person for an act committed by another person, and such liability arises out of a relationship between the two(employer and employee).

What legal remedies are available for workplace injuries in India?

Remedies include claims under the Employees’ Compensation Act, 1923, or the Employees’ State Insurance Act, 1948, with tort claims as an option for non-ESI employees, subject to choice restrictions.

What defences can an employer use in a workplace injury tort case?

Defences include contributory negligence, volenti non fit injuria, act of God, and third-party negligence, potentially reducing or avoiding liability.

References

• https://hrinformative.com/the-workmens-compensation-act-1923-analysis/
• https://blog.ipleaders.in/mc-mehta-vs-union-of-india-1986-case-analysis/
• https://lawbhoomi.com/law-of-torts-notes-important-case-laws-and-study-material/
• https://legalupanishad.com/vicarious-liability-under-india-laws/#google_vignette

Serato DJ Crack 2025Serato DJ PRO Crack