UPSC Mains 2017 GS Paper 4 Q11: model answer
You are the head of the Human Resources department of an organisation. One day one of the workers died on duty. His family was demanding compensation. However, the company denied compensation because it was revealed in investigation that he was drunk at the time of the accident. The workers of the company went on to strike demanding compensation for the family of the deceased. The Chairman of the management board has asked for your recommendation. What recommendation would you provide to the management ? Discuss the merits and demerits of each of the recommendations.
What the question wants
As HR head, recommend to the management how to handle a compensation demand for a worker who died on duty while drunk, with merits and demerits of each recommendation.
How to structure it
Recommendations with merits and demerits.
- Deny
- Pay full
- Ex gratia plus systemic fix
- My final recommendation
How to think it through
Employee's Compensation Act 1923 s.3: employer not liable where injury is attributable to influence of drink — but this exception does not apply to death (the proviso covers injuries not resulting in death). Good nuance! So legally compensation may be payable for death. ESI also covers. Also company's failure: how was a drunk worker allowed on duty? Supervision lapse. Recommendations: deny; pay full; ex gratia/humanitarian plus fix; negotiate with union. Recommend: pay statutory compensation/ex gratia, family support (job for dependant if policy), plus strict breathalyser checks, EAP for addiction, and talk with strikers.
Model answer
Stakeholders
- The deceased worker's family; striking workers; management; the company's production and image; me as HR head.
Dilemmas
- Personal fault vs humanitarian support; precedent vs compassion; company's interest vs workers' trust.
Options
- Deny; pay in full; pay on humanitarian and legal grounds while fixing the safety lapse.
Before deciding who is to blame, the company should ask a harder question: how was a drunk worker allowed on the shop floor at all?
Recommendation 1: deny compensation
- Merits: discourages drinking on duty; consistent with the investigation's findings.
- Demerits: the strike may continue and spread; the family, who did nothing wrong, is left destitute; the company's own supervision failure is hidden. Legally risky too: under the Employee's Compensation Act, 1923, the exception for injuries caused by drink does not cover death, so compensation may well be payable.
Recommendation 2: pay full compensation at once, without comment
- Merits: ends the strike quickly, builds goodwill.
- Demerits: may send a message that safety violations do not matter.
Recommendation 3: pay, call it what it is, and fix the system
- Merits: meets the legal obligation and the human one; keeps the safety message clear; addresses the supervision lapse.
- Demerits: costs money and needs careful communication.
My recommendation to the Chairman
- Pay the statutory compensation promptly, and an additional humanitarian grant for the children's education.
- Offer a job to an eligible dependant, if company policy allows.
- Acknowledge the company's lapse: a supervisor should have stopped him; take corrective action.
- Safety measures: breath tests at shift start, strict 'no fitness, no work' rule, and an employee assistance programme for alcohol dependence.
- Talk to the workers: explain the decision and the new rules, and ask them to call off the strike.
- Merits of this mix: lawful, humane, ends the strike and improves safety. Demerit: a modest cost, and some managers may see it as softness; the answer is that the safety rules become stricter, not looser. Compassion for a family is not approval of a
mistake. A company can be firm about the rule and kind to the widow on the same day.
Draw: A three-option table with merits, demerits and a tick on option 3.
Keywords, cases and data to drop in
Employee's Compensation Act 1923, drink exception not applicable to death, statutory compensation, ex gratia, dependant employment, supervision lapse, breathalyser, employee assistance programme, industrial relations, compassion, precedent.
Where most answers lose marks
- Treating 'he was drunk' as the end of the matter; the law and the company's own lapse both point the other way.
Related Mains PYQs
- A business house is working on a project that could displace a forest community from their habitat. As the administrative officer of… UPSC 2026 · GS-IV
- Owing to paucity of time, a university professor generates a Ph.D. evaluation report using Artificial Intelligence and submits it with some modifications.… UPSC 2026 · GS-IV
- An endangered tribe has developed a severe skeletal deformity. A university research has identified a mineral supplement as a possible remedy, though… UPSC 2026 · GS-IV
- Discuss how national security can be balanced with concerns of human rights. UPSC 2026 · GS-IV
Fresh examples from current affairs
Supreme Court: no prior approval under Section 17A needed to probe a bribe demand
In a judgment of 16 October 2026, a Supreme Court Bench of Justices S.V.N. Bhatti and N.V. Anjaria held that investigating a bribe demand by a public servant does not need prior approval under Section 17A of the Prevention of Corruption Act. Asking for a bribe, the court said, is not part of discharging official duties.
UPSC angle: Prelims: Sections 7, 7A, 17A and 19 of the PC Act. · Mains GS-II/GS-IV: honest officers versus accountability.
19 Oct 2026Learn the concept
Question text as printed in the official UPSC Civil Services (Main) question paper. The model answer is original Battle IAS work; use it to learn structure, not to memorise.
Want every PYQ in one place? See the Battle IAS PYQ Book.