Question

Which of the following statements can most plausibly be inferred from the application of the rules to the given facts?

• A. Aashish Mathew is an employee of the Company because the latter exercises control over the manner in which Aashish Mathew carries out his work.
• B. Aashish Mathew is not an employee but an independent contractor as he does not have a fixed salary.
• C. Aashish Mathew is an employee because the Company exercises control over the final quality of the bidis.
• D. Verification of the quality of bidis amounts to control over the product and not control over the mode and method of work and therefore, Aashish Mathew is not an employee of the Company.
• A. The injury was not caused by an accident in the course of employment.
• B. Aashish Mathew would not be an employee as the Company would have still not exercised control over the manner of work.
• C. The injury suffered by Aashish Mathew could not be held to be one caused by an accident.
• D. Stipulations, on place and hours of work relate to manner and mode of work and therefore, Aashish Mathew would be held to be an employee of the Company.
• A. The Company is not liable to pay compensation as the injury to Aashish Mathew was not caused by an accident arising in the course of employment.
• B. The Company is liable to pay the compensation.
• C. Since the injury did not arise in the course of employment, the Company would not be liable to pay the compensation even though Aashish Mathew is an employee of the company.
• D. The Company is liable to pay the compensation as Aashish Mathew is a contracted pattadar with the company.
• A. The injury to Aashish Mathew did not arise in the course of employment as he was not rolling bidis at the time when he was hit by the car.
• B. Since Aashish Mathew is a contracted pattadar with the Company, it shall be presumed that the injury was caused by an accident in the course of employment.
• C. Since there was no relationship of employment between Aashish Mathew and the Company, the injury suffered by Aashish Mathew could not be held to be one arising in ‘the course of employment’ notwithstanding the fact that the concerned injury was caused while he was involved in an activity incidental to his duties.
• D. As the concerned injury was caused to Aashish Mathew while he was involved in an activity incidental to his duties, the injury did arise in the course of employment.
• A. Had been assaulted and grievously hurt by his neighbour inside the factory precincts over a property dispute.
• B. Had slipped and fractured his arm while trying to commute on a city bus from his home to the factory.
• C. Had been injured while commuting on a bus provided by the Company and which he was required by his contract to use every day.
• D. Had been caught in the middle of a cross-fire between police and a gang of robbers while travelling to work on a city bus.

Answer 1

The Correct Option is D

Step 1: Understand Rule A

According to Rule A, a person is an employee if the mode and manner in which they carry out their work is under the control and supervision of the employer.
Mere quality control over the end product does not satisfy the requirement of control over the mode and manner of work.

Step 2: Apply the Rule to the Facts

The Company only checks the quality of bidis after they are made — it does not supervise or control:

where the pattadars roll the bidis,
how many they roll,
how or when they work.


Therefore, the Company does not control the mode or manner of Aashish Mathew’s work.

Step 3: Evaluate the Options

(a) is incorrect — there is no control over how Aashish works.
(b) is partially true, but not the strongest inference based on Rule A alone.
(c) is incorrect — quality control is not equal to control over working method.
(d) is correct — quality verification alone is insufficient to define employment.

\[ \boxed{\text{(d)}} \]

Answer 2

Step 1: Apply Rule A (Control over Mode and Manner)

Rule A defines an employee as someone whose mode and manner of work is subject to control and supervision by another.
If the company now requires pattadars to:

Work in the factory, and
Do so for a fixed number of hours daily,

then it is exerting direct control over both place and schedule of work.

Step 2: Apply to Aashish Mathew

These stipulations amount to control over how and where work is performed.
Therefore, Aashish would now be treated as an employee under Rule A.

Step 3: Eliminate Incorrect Options

(a) is incorrect — the injury may now be considered to have occurred during employment if factory attendance was mandatory.
(b) is incorrect — control over place and time is control over mode/manner.
(c) is incorrect — it assumes injury is not due to an accident, which is unrelated to the main point.
(d) is correct — control over hours and location qualifies Aashish as an employee.

\[ \boxed{\text{(d)}} \]

Answer 3

Step 1: Apply Rule B — Liability for Compensation

Rule B requires two conditions to hold:

The injured person must be an employee.
The injury must be caused by an accident arising in the course of employment.



Step 2: Check Employment Status

From Q183, if factory work and fixed hours were mandatory, Aashish would qualify as an employee.
So, the first requirement (employee status) is assumed to be satisfied.

Step 3: Analyze the Nature of the Accident

Aashish was hit by a car outside the factory while going for lunch.
This is not in the course of performing work or anything incidental to it.
Therefore, Rule B is not satisfied, and no compensation is required.

Step 4: Eliminate Incorrect Options

(a) is close but ignores the possibility that he is an employee.
(b) is incorrect — both conditions under Rule B are not satisfied.
(d) is incorrect — being a contractor (pattadar) doesn't guarantee compensation.
(c) correctly captures both: Aashish may be an employee, but the injury wasn’t in the course of employment.

\[ \boxed{\text{(c)}} \]

Answer 4

Step 1: Understand the rule for ‘Course of Employment’

Rule B defines injury "arising in the course of employment" as one that occurs during work or while doing something incidental to work.
Aashish was hit by a car outside the factory when going to lunch — not while rolling bidis, nor during any clearly incidental activity like collecting materials or submitting bidis.

Step 2: Evaluate each option

(a) is a clear and direct application of the facts and Rule B — no activity linked to employment at the time of injury.
(b) is incorrect — being a pattadar does not automatically imply the injury happened in the course of employment.
(c) is too broad — it focuses on employment status rather than the injury’s nature.
(d) is factually wrong — going for lunch outside is not necessarily incidental to the work of rolling bidis.

% Final Answer \[ \boxed{\text{(a)}} \]

Answer 5

Step 1: Apply Rule B – Course of Employment

Rule B requires the accident to occur “in the course of employment,” meaning:

While performing duties assigned by the employer, or
During activities incidental to those duties.


If transportation is mandatory and provided by the employer, then injury during commute is incidental to work.

Step 2: Assess each option under the assumption that factory attendance is compulsory

(a) — Injury arose from personal dispute, not work-related activity. Hence, not in the course of employment.
(b) — Injury while commuting on a city bus is not tied to employer or contract. Hence, not employer’s liability.
(c) — Injury occurred during employer-provided, contractually-bound commute — this is clearly incidental to employment.
(d) — Random criminal act during normal city commute — not incidental to employment.

% Final Answer \[ \boxed{\text{(c)}} \]