Section 2K: Employer's Liability - A Point of Debate
labour general intermediate mcq_debateI mugged up labour law for exams and now I'm stuck with this doubt. My friend Rohan and I had a heated discussion. Here's the question: "In a case where an employee gets injured on duty and it's found that the accident was caused due to the employer's negligence, but the employee was also contributorily negligent in some way, who is liable for the injury - the employer or the employee?"
Rohan says the employer is still responsible because sec 2K talks about the 'fact of the injury' being due to employer's negligence, and contributorily negligence doesn't take away from that fact. But I think it's different, if the employee is also to be blamed, then why should the employer pay for the entire damages? I think it's a shared liability, both the employee and employer should pay.
So, community, help us out on this, what do you guys think?
// Additional Info: Section 2K Employer's Liability is v important for students. Liability of employer for an act done by an employee has 2 interpretations. First is 'scope of employment', where employer is liable if act was done during work. Second is 'employer's negligence', where employer is liable if they failed to check employee's actions. In both cases, employer's liability is limited. It's like a 2-part puzzle, where both sides need to be clear for correct understanding.