An
‘Alderman’ ~ is a member of a municipal assembly or council in many
jurisdictions founded upon English law. The term may be titular, denoting a
high-ranking member of a borough or county council, a council member chosen by
the elected members themselves rather than by popular vote, or a council member
elected by voters. The title is derived
from the Old English title of ealdorman, literally meaning "elder
man", and was used by the chief nobles presiding over shires.
In
the Boxing Test at Melbourne, Jasprit Bumrah's first- Test man of the match
award is a fitting end to a dream debut year.The right armer with a different
arm action and sublime control had his
best Test figures of 6-33 in the first innings as Australia were skittled for
151.Only Australian Terry Alderman and West Indian Curtly Ambrose have taken
more Test wickets in their first calendar year.
In case, you have heard only of Max Walker, Dennis Lillee, Jeff Thomson,
Rodney Hogg, Geoff Lawson, Carl Rackemann, Craig Mcdermott, Merv Hughes, Bruce Reid, Glenn McGrath, Brett
Lee …. – there was Alderman, who flummoxed England and especially Geoff
Boycott.. ..
Terence
Michael Alderman was a right-arm
fast-medium bowler, who began his career playing for Western Australia in the Sheffield Shield and
came to international prominence when he was chosen for the Australian national
team to tour England in 1981. He was a poor batsman, passing fifty just once in
his career and averaging barely eight in first-class cricket. In the 1981 Ashes
series he took 42 Test wickets, including nine on debut, the biggest haul in a
series since Jim Laker's 46 in 1956 and the fourth-highest total of all time. He was rashly tacked by an English supporter
invader at Perth in Nov 1982 and that injury forced him out of action for a couple
of years. In between Alderman took part
in an unofficial Australian tour of South Africa in 1985–86 and 1986–87, when
that country was banned from Test cricket as a Commonwealth anti-apartheid
sanction. As a result, he received a 3-year ban from international cricket
which disqualified him from playing in the 1985 Ashes series in England. He was to return in 1989 Ashes taking 41
wicket again .. .. but could not enjoy similar success against other
Nations.
After traversing this length, this is no post on Cricket but on
‘notional extention theory’ under Workmen compensation. A simple Q on why the
workmen was there at the place of accident – whether it was necessitated by
employment or was he there on his own volition, as any other member of public. Employees Compensation Act (Amended) 2009 [Workmen Compensation Act 1923 earlier] –
provides for payment of compensation by the employer to his employees (or their
dependents in the event of fatal accidents) in respect of personal injury due
to accidents arising out of and in the course of their employment. The beneficial enactment aims not at compensating the workmen the
wages, but provides for compensation for
the injury or death. The amount of
compensation depends on the nature of the injury and the average monthly wages
and age of workmen.
Alderman v. Great Western Railway Co.was
a case before House of Lords whence the august House considered the aspect of notional extention of
work place in a different context.
Workplace and work hours though not defined in the Act have a clearer
jurisdiction .. .. .. however, there
could be times and places which can be considered to be inclusive. : “…The man’s
work does not consist solely in the task
which he is
employed to perform.
It includes also matters
incidental to that
task. Times during which meals are taken, moments during which the man
is proceeding towards his work from one portion of his employers’ premises
to another, and
periods of rest
may all be included.”
The
cause of action pertained to a Ticket collector in a Railway company. The applicant, a travelling ticket collector
in the employment of the respondent railway company, had, in the course of his
duty, to travel from Oxford, where his home was, to Swansea, where he had to
stay overnight, returning thence on the following day to Oxford. He had an
unfettered right as to how he spent his time at Swansea between signing off and
signing on, and he could reach the station by any route or by any method he
chose. In proceeding one morning from his lodgings to Swansea station to perform
his usual duty, he fell in the street and sustained an injury in respect of
which he claimed compensation. The House of Lords
held that the applicant was not performing any duty under his contract of
service and therefore the accident did not arise in the course of his
employment.
The
reason for the decision as recorded was : "........ when he (the
applicant) set out from the house in which he had chosen to lodge in Swansea to
go to sign on at the station he was (and had been ever since he had signed off
on the previous afternoon) subject to no control and he was for all purposes in
the same position as an ordinary member of the public, using the streets in
transit to his employer's premises."
This
case, therefore, applies the principle that if the employee at the time of the
accident occupies the same position as an ordinary member of the public, it
cannot be said that the accident occurred in the course of his employment. This
is a, simple case of an employee going to the station as any other member of the
public would do, though his object was to sign on at the said station.
After
considering the decisions on the subject, the learned Lord concluded thus :
"When all the cases have been looked at and considered, one is finally
brought back to the words of the Act, "'the course of the employ
ment". The course of the employment begins when the workman enters the
employment, and it ceases when he leaves the employment, it being his duty to
do both."
Interesting
and time-bound principles do not change !
With
regards – S. Sampathkumar
No comments:
Post a Comment