Case Name: THE REGIONAL MANAGER, FOOD CORPORATION OF INDIA, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM V. MOHANDAS.
Petition Number: MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL (ECC) NO. 29 OF 2023
Neutral Citation: 2026:KER:28793
Date of Judgement: 31.03.2026
Coram: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE S. MANU
INTRODUCTION
In the present case, the Hon’ble High Court of Kerala examined whether the absence of notice bars the Employee-claimant from claiming compensation under the Employees Compensation Act, 1923 from the Employer when the Employer had prior knowledge of the accident occurred during the course of employment.
FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY
The respondent in the present appeal before the High Court of Kerala was a paid headload worker in the godown of the appellant who on 17th November, 2007, while loading bags, sustained fractures of bones on both legs which resulted in deformity of his limbs. The respondent underwent surgical procedures. He claimed an amount of Rs. 1,17,410 as compensation for the accident during the course of employment. After examining the pleadings and evidence of both parties, the Commissioner, Employees Compensation Commission, concluded that the Respondent was entitled to a Compensation of Rs. 2,62,216 along with additional costs of the claim. The Appellant claimed in appeal before the Court that the claim for compensation is not maintainable as the Appellant did not receive notice of the application from the Respondent.
ISSUE
The substantial question of law involved is whether the want of notice under Section 10 of the Employees Compensation Act is mandatory?
SUBMISSIONS OF THE PARTIES
The Appellant contended that no notice was issued to him by the employee (Respondent), as provided under Section 10 of the aforementioned Act. He further contended that the words under Section 10(1) of the Act are unequivocal and no claim shall be entertained by the Commissioner unless and until the notice has been served to the Employer. Thus, the Appellant claimed that the issuing of notice was mandated under Section 10, which was overlooked by the Commission and therefore, the proceedings were not maintainable. The contention of not issuing notice was rejected by the Commissioner, stating that there was a mediation held between the two parties before the application for Compensation was filed by the Respondent.
JUDGEMENT AND ANALYSIS
The Court clarified in the present judgement, that the purpose of notice stated in Section 10 in the Employees Compensation Act is to bring the accident to the notice of the Employer. In the present case, there was a mediation between the two parties before filing of Application which is sufficient to bring to the employer the knowledge about the accident. This has been mentioned in Proviso 4 of Section 10(1) of the said Act; that if the employer had knowledge about the accident from any other source at or about the time it occurred, the irregularity or defect or want of notice shall not be a bar to entertain the claim. The Court further added that the scope of a provision should be read as a whole, including the provisos as the impact of the provision depends on what is provided in the provisos.
The Court also described the three roles of a proviso clause in an Act, namely the exclusionary, the qualifier and the clarificatory.
CONCLUSION
This judgement of the Court thus shed light on the importance of reading a provision harmoniously, inclusive of provisos and clarified that the purpose of notice stated in the Act is to bring knowledge to the party, about the accident, during the course of employment.
