Skip to main content


1. A. Mackenzie vs. J S Izzak, AIR 1970 SC 1906

Ref: AIR 1970 SC 1906

Sub:- This case is based on Section 2 of the Workmen Compensation Act, 1923.

Facts of the case :-

1. S.S. Dwarka is a ship whose owner is The British India Stream Navigation Limited and Mackenzie was its agent.

2. Shaikh Ibrahim Hasan was a class II seaman on this ship and who was missing from the ship.

3. It was clear from the medical log book that he had a chest pain on 13 December 1961 and he was suffering from it.

4. It was known from the medical checkup that nothing was unusual and medical officer gave him medicines and con- firmed his recovery and joining back on his duty next day.

5. It was known from the log book of the office on 16 Decem- ber 1961 that he was on the ship that day and he was seen on the bridge at 2:50 in the morning.

6. He was found missing at 6:15 in the morning. The master of the ship informed on the radio message at 7:30 in the morning that a seaman is missing between Khoramsar and Asahar and he is likely to be missing in the river. All the ships be stopped by locking them.

7. The father of the missing seaman Shaikh Ibrahim Hasan, Izzak filed a case on his behalf under Section 3 of the Work- men Compensation Act.

Trial Court:-

The Trial Court dismissed the case by holding that there is no evidence that Ibrahim died during duty.

High Court :-

Against this judgment, Izzak filed an appeal before the High Court and aside the judgment of the Trial व्या passed an order for compensation of Rs. 2,000

Supreme Court:-

Mackenzie preferred an appeal before the Supreme Court against the judgment of the High Court. The Supreme Court held that the judg ment of the Trial Court is correct and held that death of Ibrahim on the duty because he had jumped into the sea in a frenzied condition. The Court held that there must be a relation of cause and effect between incident and the employment. In case of death caused by the accident, it is for the dependant to prove that the accident took place on account of the employment and in its premises. This is a necessary test that acci- dent is an integral part of the employment.

Judgment: Appeal allowed

Law points :-

1. If a person is missing during the working hours and his body is not found, it may be presumed that his death took place during the working hours.

2. Workmen Compensation Act 1923 is intended to make pro- visions for compensation to the workmen by the employ- ers in case of damage arising out of an accident.

3. There is direct relationship between an accident and li- ability as in between employer and employee.

4. If an employee suffers a damage while on duty and he ful- fils all the ingredients, he will be entitled for a compensa- tion.

Key Points Suggestions by Gudda Bhaiya 


Popular posts from this blog

Important Topics for Semester Exam in Environmental Law useful for LL.B Students.

  1.           State facts and the principles of law laid down in the case of Monera Mandal Sahkari Shakkar Karkhana Society vs M.P. Board of Prevention of Water Pollution, 1993 M.P.L.J.270.   2.            Power to take samples of effluents and procedure to be followed in connection therewith under the Environment (Protection) Act, 1986 3.            Discuss the various provisions Indian Constitution concerning Environmental Protection. What are the main features of the Environment (Protection) Act 1986 and the provisions of penalties and procedure for violation of provisions, rules, orders and instructions. 4.            Describe the special provisions in the case of supersession of the Central Board or the State Board constituted under the Water (prevention and control of pollution) Act, 1974. Explain in brief about the provisions regarding appeal and revision under this Act. 5.            Explain the objects and main provisions of the Air (Prevention and Control of Pollut