Royal Commission on Labour in India: Report(1929)||
There are obvious objections on the ground of logic to both of these criteria and, indeed, to almost any other limitation on the classes of workmen who should be included. The effects of an accident upon a workman or his dependants bear little relation to the nature of the establishment in which he has been employed: the employer, unless he is connected with his workmen by family ties, is more likely to give compensation without being compelled to do so if his establishment is a large one. And while it is true generally that accidents are more frequent in organised industry than in other occupations, there are branches of employment which are not organised, but which are distinctly hazardous. Further, the fact that an industry is not hazardous, i.e., that accidents in it arc infrequent, in no way mitigates the effects of an accident when it does occur; if a worker is killed in a non-hazardous occupation, his dependants suffer no less hardship because the accident was an unlikely one.