You can grab notes for other topics from here.
Section 36(3) did not cast an absolute duty on the occupier to prevent the entry into the pit and the mere fact that a person had entered the pit did not by itself prove that he had been “permitted to enter ” within the meaning of that, subsection. The primary duty was on the worker prohibiting him from entering the pit. At the same time, the occupier was also liable if his permission to the entry, whether express or implied, could be inferred from. the facts and circumstances of the case.
Section 36(4) cast an absolute duty on the occupier to see that the breathing apparatus etc was always available in the factory and was periodically examined and certified fit for use and a sufficient number of persons were trained in its use. But there was no duty to keep the apparatus at the pit at all times; such a duty arose when some person was about to enter the pit with the permission of the occupier.
You can grab notes for other topics from here.
