There is no problem in detecting that the accident occurred in the course of employment when a workman is injured in the working place and in the working hour and doing his duty. The problem arises when these elements do not coincide together. But a workmen if injured just near the work premises or just before joining the work or in the way to work problem arises. To address this kind of problem and giving some kind of relief to the workmen the theory of notional extension evolved.

“As a rule, the employment of a workman does not commence until he has reached the place of employment and does not continue when he has left the place of employment, the journey to and from the place of employment being excluded. It is now well-settled, however, that this is subject to the theory of notional extension of the employer’s premises so as to include an area which the workman passes and repasses in going to and in leaving the actual place of work. There may be some reasonable extension in both time and place and a workman may be regarded as in the course of his employment even though he had not reached or had left his employer’s premises. The facts and circumstances of each case will have to be examined very carefully in order to determine whether the accident arose out of and in the course of the employment of a workman, keeping in view at all times this theory of notional extension.” 

Wider interpretation of duty:

Court has given a wider and popular meaning of “duty” to expand the scope of this section. The court also talks about the service contract to determine which can be come under the preview of this section. Justice Cozens-Hardy M. R. said “……… it was an implied term of the contract of service that these trains should be provided by the employers, and that the colliers should have the right, if not the obligation, to travel to and from without charge.” In the next case the court has interpreted the term “duty” in stricter sense.

In Weaver v. Tredegar Iron Coal Co.  House of Lords after examining a large number of authorities given a wider meaning of “duty” but did not negated the duty test.In this case lord Atkin said that there can be no doubt that the course of employment cannot be limited to the time or place of the specific work which the workman is employed to do. It does not necessarily end when the “‘down tools” signal is given, or when the actual workshop where he is working is left. In other words, the employment may run on its course by its own momentum beyond the actual stopping place. There may be some reasonable extension in both time and space.” Lord Porter further said that if an accident occurs while coming to the workplace or leaving the place can be out of and in the course of employment if he is bound by the way he proceed under the terms of the contract of service express or implied. Here duty test was confirmed.

Expanding the preview of Service Contract:

In St. Helens Colliery Co Ltd v. Hewlston  the court said that the injury did not occur in the course of employment because the employee was not bound or obliged to travel by that special train and he could have taken other transport. If he were bound by the service contract to travel by that train then it would have been in the course of employment (Lord Buckmaster). It was also added that if the place of work is like that there is no alternative means of transport other than the transport given by the employer then it can be concluded that there is an implied term in the service contract to use that transport (Lord Atkinson). The same view was taken in Mackenzie v. I.M. Issak says that a workman in a colliery is not in course of his employment while using the transport of the employer if he is not bound by the terms of the contract to travel by that transport.

There was a particular situation where employee has to take bus service to reach his workplace from home and vise versa. It was necessary for doing his duty efficiently and punctually which was a condition under his service  . So, travelling in that bus was an implied condition to his duty. It was also said that this doctrine was developed to cover the factory, workshops and harbors but it can be applied in this kind of situation also. Compensation was granted holding that the accident arising in the course of employment. Though the court said what would be the indicator that when the work starts and ceases that depends on case to case basis.

In Union of India v. Mrs . Noor Jahan  a railway gangman was ordered by his employer to go to another place for cleaning and in the way from one place to another accident happened. Justice Sukla observed that the accident has occurred in the duty hour and when he was going to do his duty on behalf of his employer and he concluded that the accident has occurred in the course of his employment.

Public Place and this Doctrine:

There are some situations where this doctrine does not apply. When a workman is on the public road or public place and not there for fulfilling the obligation and his work does not make necessary to be there. The proximity of the work premises and spot of accident become immaterial. The notional extension of the place of work cease when workman come to a public road. There were some clarification made in the next case in this matter.

In Saurashtra Salt Manufacturing Co. v. Valu Raja  Justice Jafer Imam said that,

“It is well settled that when a workman is on a public road or a public place or on a public transport he is there as any other member of the public and is not there in the course of his employment unless the very nature of his employment makes it necessary for him to be there. A workman is not in the course of his employment from the moment he leaves his home and is on his way to his work. He certainly is in the course of his employment if he reaches the place of work or a point or an area which comes within the theory of notional extension, outside of which the employer is not liable to pay compensation for any accident happening to him.”

Definition:Black’s Law Dictionary defines ‘Delegation’ as ‘the act of entrusting another with authority or empowering another to act as an agent or representative’. E.g. Delegation of Contractual Duties.

‘Subordinate Legislation’ has been defined as:

“Legislation that derives from any authority other than the Sovereign Power in a state and that depends for its continued existence and validity on some superior or supreme authority.”

Salmonddefines – “Subordinate legislation is that which proceeds from any authority other than the sovereign power, and is therefore dependent for its continued existence and validity on some superior or supreme authority.”

Delegated legislation is, at times, referred to as “Ancillary”, “Subordinate”, Administrative Legislation or as Quasi-Legislation”. Delegated legislation is a technique to relieve pressure on legislature’s time so that it can concentrate on principles and formulation of policies.

Essential characteristics of Delegated Legislation:

· The rules should contain short titles, explanatory notes, reference to earlier amendments, etc. for clear understanding.

·     No extra-ordinary delay shall occur in making the subordinate legislation.

·   The administrative authority should not travel beyond the powers given in Parent Act.

·      Essential legislative functions cannot be delegated.

·      Sub-delegation (Delegatus non potest delegare) is not encouraged.

·    General rules should not be framed with retrospective operation, unless and until the parent Act instructs to do so.

·       Discriminatory and arbitrary rules should not be framed.

·       Wide and sufficient publicity shall be given so that general public can know it.

·   In appropriate cases, consultation also shall be made for more effectiveness and efficiency.

·   The Sub-ordinate authorities should not use rigid, crux and technical language while preparing the rules, which may cause difficulty to understand by general public.

·      The final authority of interpretation of the subordinate rules is vested to Parliament and Courts. But the administrative authorities are not empowered and authorised to interpret the statutes.

·        A tax or financial levy should not be imposed by rules.

·        Wherever it is necessary, the explanatory notes shall be given.

·        Public interest must be kept in view while delegating the powers, etc.

History of Delegated Leislation in India:

a. Pre – constitutional Position:

The history of delegation of powers can be traced from the charter stage of 1833 when the East India Company was regaining political influence in India. The of 1833 vested the legislative powers exclusively in Governor – General – in council, which was an executive body. He was empowered to make laws and regulations for repealing, amending or altering any laws or regulations, which were in force for all persons irrespective of their nationality. In 1935 the Government of India Ac, 1935 was passed which contained an intensive scheme of delegation. The report of the committee on ministers’ powers was submitted and approved which fully established the case for delegation of powers and delegation of legislation was regarded as inevitable in India.

b. Present Position:

Though, our constitution was based on the principal of separation of powers, a complete separation of powers was not possible hence it maintained the sanctity of the doctrine in the modern sense. The Indian Constitution does not prohibit the delegation of powers. On the other hand there are several provisions where the executive has been granted the legislative powers. For example the legislative powers of the president under the Indian Constitution are conspicuous. Under Article 123 the president has the power to promulgate the ordinances and unrestricted power to frame regulations for peace progress and good government of the union territory under Article 240. The Supreme Court of India has also upheld the delegation of legislative powers by the legislative to the legislative to the executive in the case of Raj Narayan Singh v. Chairman Patna Administration Committee

Growth of Delegation of Power and it’s Reason:

Many factors are responsible for the rapid growth of delegated legislation in every modern democratic state. The traditional theory of ‘laissez faire’ has been given up by every state and the old ‘police state’ has now become a ‘welfare state’. Because of this radical change in the philosophy as to role to be played by the state, their functions have increase. Consequently, delegated legislation has become essential and inevitable.

Some of the reasons of the growth of the Delegation of Powers are as follows:

1. Pressure upon Parliamentary Time:

As a result of the expanding horizons of the state activity, the bulk of legislation is so great that it is not possible for the legislation to devote sufficient time to discuss all the matters in detail. Hence there is need for a delegation of power.

2. Technicality:

Sometimes, the subject – matter on which legislation is required is so technical in nature that the legislator, being himself a common man, cannot be expected to appreciate and legislate on the same, and the assistance of experts may be required. Hence,  this lead to the growth of delegation of power.

3. Flexibility:

At the time of passing any legislative enactment, it is impossible to foresee all the contingencies, and some provision is required to be made for these unforeseen situations demanding exigent action. Hence there is a need for flexibility which leads to the growth of delegation of power.

4. Experiment:

The practice of delegated legislation enables the executive to experiment. The method permits rapid utilization of experience and implementation of necessary changes.

5. Emergency:

In the time of emergency, quick action is required to be taken. The legislative process is not equipped to provide for urgent solution to meet the situation. Hence there is need for delegation of power.

Delegation Legislation : Position under Constitution of India

The Legislature is quite competent to delegate to other authorities. To frame the rules to carry out the law made by it. In D. S. Gerewal v. The State of Punjab, K.N. Wanchoo, the then justice of the Hon’ble Supreme Court dealt in detail the powers of delegated legislation under the Article 312 of Indian Constitution. He observed: “There is nothing in the words of Article 312 which takes away the usual power of delegation, which ordinarily resides in the legislature. The words “Parliament may by law provide” in Article 312 should not be read to mean that there is no scope for delegation in law made under Article312….” In the England, the parliament being supreme can delegated any amount of powers because there is no restriction. On the other hand in America, like India, the Congress does not possess uncontrolled and unlimited powers of delegation.

In Panama Refining Co. v. Rayans, the supreme court of the United States had held that the Congress can delegate legislative powers to the Executive subject to the condition that it lays down the policies and establishes standards while leaving to the administrative authorities the making of subordinate rules within the prescribed limits. 4 Art. 13 (3) Defines law and it Includes ordinance, order, byelaw, rule, regulation & notification having the force of law.

In Sikkim v. Surendra Sharma– it is held that ‘All Laws in force’ in sub clause (k) of Art. 371 F includes subordinate legislation. Salmond defines law as that which proceeds from any authority other than the Sovereign power & is therefore, dependent for its continued existence & validity on some superior or supreme authority.