Royal Commission on Labour in India: Report(1929)||
Further, the provisions regarding notice are unduly stringent in their terms. We think it a wise provision that notices must be written but in other directions some relaxation is desirable. It is true that the Commissioner has wide powers to dispense with the necessity of a notice; but there are a number of cases in which no notice is really necessary and some of these might be specified in the Act. Thus notices should be declared to be unnecessary in fatal accidents, if the accident occurs on the employer's premises and the workman dies on any premises of the employer or at the place where he was resident at the time of the accident (without having left the vicinity). Further, it should be definitely specified that, in all cases, want of notice or a defect in a notice should not bar proceedings if the employer is proved to have had knowledge of the accident from any other source at or about the time it occurred. These exceptions should not be regarded as substitutes for the general power of making exceptions vested in the Commissioner, which should remain as at present. We understand that, when the rules of procedure were originally drawn up, the Government of India contemplated the possibility of requiring certain employers to maintain books for notices of accidents similar to those prescribed for certain establishments in Great Britain; but they came to the conclusion that the Act did not empower them to act in this manner. We recommend that local Governments be authorised by law to require the maintenance of such books by any classes of employers.
Notice books, if effectively maintained, are of assistance to both employers and workmen; and, in spite of the illiteracy of many Indian workmen, books might be utilised in some branches of industry.