7.The learned counsel appearing for the respondent would contend that the employer is not liable since the apprentice disregarded safety measures and courted danger and invited the accident in question. It is true that Section 3 of the Employees Compensation Act, 1923, exempts the employers from liability under such circumstances. But in order to exempt the employer from liability, willful conduct on the part of the employee must be shown. Even according to the employer, the respondent is not a seasoned worker. He was after all an apprentice who had come for training. It may be that he did not adhere to the safety standards. But that is not sufficient to characterise his conduct as willful. The employer has not been able to show that the respondent has been willful in his conduct. I therefore hold that the Commissioner for workmen's Compensation rightly fastened the liability on the employer. It is a fact that the accident happened and it is a fact that the employee suffered injuries. The Commissioner merely applied the statutory formula and awarded a compensation of Rs.1,30,990/-. The awarded amount cannot be said to be excessive. I see no reason to interfere. The award dated dated https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 20.10.2015, made in in W.C.No.8 of 2011 on the file of the Commissioner of Workmen's compensation Act (Deputy Commissioner of
