214 
CHAPTER XVI. 
appeal to the High Court. The Government of India have therefore 
suggested giving the Commissioner and the High Court the necessary 
powers to prevent the disbursement of money which may be found 
ultimately not to be due to the recipients. This suggestion has met 
with approval from many of those consulted ; but apprehension has 
been expressed that the amendment might inflict great hardship on de- 
pendants and others owing to the long time frequently necessary for the 
decision of an appeal. We see no satisfactory way of eliminating this 
risk ; but it would be possible to minimise it by requiring employers who 
apply for the withholding of the compensation to deposit a substantial 
amount with the Commissioner, e.g., Rs. 100 or some fraction of the 
compensation, which, if the necessary order was passed, would be treated 
as a fee and distributed for purposes of maintenance to the dependants. 
As a matter of fact, appeals are only possible if a substantial question of 
law is involved, and their importance to the employer lies. in many cases. 
not in the sum at stake but in the question at issue. 
(2) We think that the Act should make it possible to impose a fine 
for failure to furnish any return required by it. A similar penalty should 
be prescribed for failure to comply with the provisions relating to fur- 
nishing notices of fatal accidents, etc., which we have recommended 
above, if these recommendations are adopted. 
(v) The provisions in section 5 ‘of the Act for the calculation of 
wages give some difficulty in application to ceses where the workman has 
been engaged for a very short period before the accident, e.g., less than a 
month. A clause to obviate the difficulty was included in the amending 
bill introduced in the Legislative Assembly in 1928 ; but it was eliminated 
before the hill was passed because there were doubts as to its equity and 
it was desired to avoid making any amendments of a controversial charac- 
ter at that time. The clause is based on principles adopted elsewhere, 
and we consider it suitable for adoption. 
Employers’ Liability. 
Before concluding this chapter we deal with a question which, 
while not strictly a matter affecting workmen’s compensation legislation, 
is connected with it. Persons injured by accident may have a remedy 
by a suit for damages against their employer in the civil court, and 
It is suggested that the law there applicable is inequitable because 
two defences may be evoked by the employer to defeat claims 
which he should justly be called upon to meet. One is the defence of 
‘“ common employment ”’ by which an employer can plead that an acci- 
dent was due to the default of a fellow-workman, and the other is the 
defence of “ assumed risk ”’ by which an employer is not liable for injury 
caused to workmen through the ordinary risks of employment, and a work- 
man is presumed to have assumed risks which were apparent when he enter- 
ed upon his occupation. When the Indian Workmen’s Compensation Act 
was first introduced, it had, in addition to the provisions for workmen’s 
compensation, clauses designed to abrogate these defences in certain 
cases ; but the Joint Select Committee of the Legislature deleted the