Dear Gopi
In case of any accident occurs in work place, then for those not covered with ESI (Salary above Rs.15000/- pm), the organisation has to bear the cost of compensation and medical expenses incurred on the injured victim. As the cost of payment in the name of Compensation and Medical Expense is more, normally the employer used to obtain a WC Policy (GPA Policy). Whether the employer have the GPA Policy or not, the employer has to bear the cost of Compensation and Medical Expenses incurred towards the injured employee.
From India, Kumbakonam
1166In case of any accident occurs in work place, then for those not covered with ESI (Salary above Rs.15000/- pm), the organisation has to bear the cost of compensation and medical expenses incurred on the injured victim. As the cost of payment in the name of Compensation and Medical Expense is more, normally the employer used to obtain a WC Policy (GPA Policy). Whether the employer have the GPA Policy or not, the employer has to bear the cost of Compensation and Medical Expenses incurred towards the injured employee.
From India, Kumbakonam
Dear G K
If you have copy of policy then refere it because it doesnt mention the name of the policy holder because some of them are daily wager and contract basis...so if contractor has employed 40 workers and taken the policy of only 20 workers then this ratio is enough until he completes the project...because not all employees will meet with an accident probability is very less...contractor doesnt pay premium for 20 employees if liability occures for 21 employees then he will bear the compensation of 1 worker on his own..
Regards
Ankit Ahjolia
From India
If you have copy of policy then refere it because it doesnt mention the name of the policy holder because some of them are daily wager and contract basis...so if contractor has employed 40 workers and taken the policy of only 20 workers then this ratio is enough until he completes the project...because not all employees will meet with an accident probability is very less...contractor doesnt pay premium for 20 employees if liability occures for 21 employees then he will bear the compensation of 1 worker on his own..
Regards
Ankit Ahjolia
From India
Dear Mr.Harikrishnan,
If a company is situated in the ESI 'Non notify area" , WC (Now Employee Compensation ) Act will become applicable.
We have covered the persons (Workmen Category) under Workmen Compensation Policy.They are drawing less than Rs.15,000/- (ESI Limit) as monthly salary.
Rest of them are in Staff category who are drawing their monthly salary more than Rs15,000/- .They are not covered under WC policy.But they are included in the Group mediclaim policy.Accoring to thye policy of the management ,eligible claim under Mediclaim policy amount will differ based on their designation.
Since the company has situated in non-ESI juristictional area. Whether we should cover all the person irrespective of ESI limit to be covered under WC policy or above I have stated is valid by law?
I have no doubt that In the absence of ESI Act,WC act will become applicable.
Is any judgement available related to this?
Why we should cover under WC policy to the person drawing more than Rs.15,000/- even factory is situated in ESI Non-Notify area.
IS there any judgment or legal interpretation for supporting that to cover all the person irespective of ESI limit to cover WC policy?
Pl clarify it.
Regards
D Pannerselvam
9842219133
From India, Mumbai
If a company is situated in the ESI 'Non notify area" , WC (Now Employee Compensation ) Act will become applicable.
We have covered the persons (Workmen Category) under Workmen Compensation Policy.They are drawing less than Rs.15,000/- (ESI Limit) as monthly salary.
Rest of them are in Staff category who are drawing their monthly salary more than Rs15,000/- .They are not covered under WC policy.But they are included in the Group mediclaim policy.Accoring to thye policy of the management ,eligible claim under Mediclaim policy amount will differ based on their designation.
Since the company has situated in non-ESI juristictional area. Whether we should cover all the person irrespective of ESI limit to be covered under WC policy or above I have stated is valid by law?
I have no doubt that In the absence of ESI Act,WC act will become applicable.
Is any judgement available related to this?
Why we should cover under WC policy to the person drawing more than Rs.15,000/- even factory is situated in ESI Non-Notify area.
IS there any judgment or legal interpretation for supporting that to cover all the person irespective of ESI limit to cover WC policy?
Pl clarify it.
Regards
D Pannerselvam
9842219133
From India, Mumbai
Dear Mr.Pannerselvam
1.As your company is in an area to which there is no ESI notification, the Employees Compensation Act is applicable to all those “employees” as defined under section 2(dd) of the Employees Compensation Act. The applicability of the Employees Compensation is not restricted to “employees” whose wage does not exceed Rs.15000/- All employees who come within the ambit of the definition of the term “employee” as defined under section 2(dd) of the Employees Compensation Act(ECA) irrespective of the wages drawn by them are entitled get compensation from the employer for injuries or death suffered as a result of an accident that arose out of and in the course of their employment with the employer.
2. The ECAct is applicable even to staff members if they come within the ambit of the definition of the term “employees” as defined in section 2(dd).
3.The responsibility and liability to pay compensation under the WC Act(EC Act) is on the employer. If a WC policy is taken, the insurer only insures the liability of the employer to pay compensation under the EC Act subject to the terms and conditions of the insurance document. If the employer has not insured his liability to pay compensation under the EC Act then the employer has to pay the entire sum awarded or calculated as the compensation payable.
4. Coverage and payment under the group mediclaim policy will not take away the liability of the employer to pay compensation under the ECAct to an “employee”. Whether the insurance company will pay the compensation under the ECAct and payable by the employer to the employee, depends on the terms of the group mediclaim policy. The policy has to be read to formulate a view on this aspect.
5.It would be advisable to cover your liability to pay compensation under the provisions of the EC Act in respect of all the employees who come within the definition of the term “employee” as defined in section 2(dd) of the EC Act.
6.The wage limit prescribed for the applicability of the ESI Act is not applicable to the EC Act. Both are different enactments. The provisions of the ESI Act cannot be read into the provisions of the EC Act.
With regards
From India, Madras
1.As your company is in an area to which there is no ESI notification, the Employees Compensation Act is applicable to all those “employees” as defined under section 2(dd) of the Employees Compensation Act. The applicability of the Employees Compensation is not restricted to “employees” whose wage does not exceed Rs.15000/- All employees who come within the ambit of the definition of the term “employee” as defined under section 2(dd) of the Employees Compensation Act(ECA) irrespective of the wages drawn by them are entitled get compensation from the employer for injuries or death suffered as a result of an accident that arose out of and in the course of their employment with the employer.
2. The ECAct is applicable even to staff members if they come within the ambit of the definition of the term “employees” as defined in section 2(dd).
3.The responsibility and liability to pay compensation under the WC Act(EC Act) is on the employer. If a WC policy is taken, the insurer only insures the liability of the employer to pay compensation under the EC Act subject to the terms and conditions of the insurance document. If the employer has not insured his liability to pay compensation under the EC Act then the employer has to pay the entire sum awarded or calculated as the compensation payable.
4. Coverage and payment under the group mediclaim policy will not take away the liability of the employer to pay compensation under the ECAct to an “employee”. Whether the insurance company will pay the compensation under the ECAct and payable by the employer to the employee, depends on the terms of the group mediclaim policy. The policy has to be read to formulate a view on this aspect.
5.It would be advisable to cover your liability to pay compensation under the provisions of the EC Act in respect of all the employees who come within the definition of the term “employee” as defined in section 2(dd) of the EC Act.
6.The wage limit prescribed for the applicability of the ESI Act is not applicable to the EC Act. Both are different enactments. The provisions of the ESI Act cannot be read into the provisions of the EC Act.
With regards
From India, Madras
Dear Sir, Thanks for your reply. I agreed your explanations. I will be grateful to you if any rulings/judgement related to support our cause? Thanks and Regards D Pannerselvam
From India, Mumbai
From India, Mumbai
Dear Mr.Pannerselvam Please specify the issue regarding which you require a case law. I will try to get it if possible With regards
From India, Madras
From India, Madras
Dear Sir,
What my opinion on this subject as,
Could we take the example of PF Act, This Act will be covered If 20 or more employees employed.
PF Act will not be applicable to the employee if he draws his monthly salary more than Rs.6500/-.But it applies to the Whole industry as well as the remaining members who are drawing their monthly salary less than Rs.6500/-.Here Both covered and non covered employees are working in the same industry/unit.
Like that, EC Act will become applicable in the absence of ESI Act (On my case is Factory is situated in ESI Non-Notify area.)
While reading on both the Acts(ESI,ECA), ECA get the applicability on the absence of ESI Act.
Non applicability of ESI act on various grounds.
1. Factory situated on Non revenue village area(Jurisdictional issue,Minimum ESI members required, Dispensary).
2. Employee draws more than Rs.15000/- as gross salary.Here Act applies to the whole indusry.ESI Act applies only covered members.It will not become applicable for non -covered members.Here also both covered and non-covered employees are working in the same unit/factory.
One of my contention is that The very Applicability of EC Act comes from the absence of ESI Act. EC Act applies only on the absence of above grounds (S.no. 1 and 2 ).
Another contention is that Why we should not take/apply legal provisions on the non applicability of ESI to EC Act?
Eventhough two acts are seperate enactment. Consonance of both Acts will be considered while deciding on this issue?
Based on your explanation,EC Act is a special Act which super sede the ESI Act. Special Act will prevail over General Acts(ESI Act).
I have fully agreed on your earlier explanations.
I may be wrong .So Please clarify on my above contentions.
Regards
D Pannerselvam
From India, Mumbai
What my opinion on this subject as,
Could we take the example of PF Act, This Act will be covered If 20 or more employees employed.
PF Act will not be applicable to the employee if he draws his monthly salary more than Rs.6500/-.But it applies to the Whole industry as well as the remaining members who are drawing their monthly salary less than Rs.6500/-.Here Both covered and non covered employees are working in the same industry/unit.
Like that, EC Act will become applicable in the absence of ESI Act (On my case is Factory is situated in ESI Non-Notify area.)
While reading on both the Acts(ESI,ECA), ECA get the applicability on the absence of ESI Act.
Non applicability of ESI act on various grounds.
1. Factory situated on Non revenue village area(Jurisdictional issue,Minimum ESI members required, Dispensary).
2. Employee draws more than Rs.15000/- as gross salary.Here Act applies to the whole indusry.ESI Act applies only covered members.It will not become applicable for non -covered members.Here also both covered and non-covered employees are working in the same unit/factory.
One of my contention is that The very Applicability of EC Act comes from the absence of ESI Act. EC Act applies only on the absence of above grounds (S.no. 1 and 2 ).
Another contention is that Why we should not take/apply legal provisions on the non applicability of ESI to EC Act?
Eventhough two acts are seperate enactment. Consonance of both Acts will be considered while deciding on this issue?
Based on your explanation,EC Act is a special Act which super sede the ESI Act. Special Act will prevail over General Acts(ESI Act).
I have fully agreed on your earlier explanations.
I may be wrong .So Please clarify on my above contentions.
Regards
D Pannerselvam
From India, Mumbai
Dear Mr.Gurumurthy
Please see section 12 of the Employees Compensation Act. In the case of an accident to a worker engaged through a contractor and who has suffered an injury or has died to an accident that arose out of and in the course of his employment, the liability to pay the compensation is primarily on the principal employer. The employee who has suffered as a result of the accident can file a claim for compensation against the Principal Employer, admitting that he was the employee of a contractor and not of the principal employer. The Employees Compensation Commissioner would be acting within the provisions of the Employees Compensation Act if he orders the principal employer to pay the entire amount of compensation to the concerned worker. Of course, later the principal employer can recover the amount of compensation paid by him from the contractor. This section also says that the claim could be filed against the contractor also. Therefore, the principal employer has to be very careful while engaging contract labour in areas to which the ESI Act is not applicable. In other words, nothing prevents the injured employee from filing a claim against the principal employer alone leaving out the contractor. The injured worker has a choice in proceeding against the principal employer or against the contractor.
With regards
From India, Madras
Please see section 12 of the Employees Compensation Act. In the case of an accident to a worker engaged through a contractor and who has suffered an injury or has died to an accident that arose out of and in the course of his employment, the liability to pay the compensation is primarily on the principal employer. The employee who has suffered as a result of the accident can file a claim for compensation against the Principal Employer, admitting that he was the employee of a contractor and not of the principal employer. The Employees Compensation Commissioner would be acting within the provisions of the Employees Compensation Act if he orders the principal employer to pay the entire amount of compensation to the concerned worker. Of course, later the principal employer can recover the amount of compensation paid by him from the contractor. This section also says that the claim could be filed against the contractor also. Therefore, the principal employer has to be very careful while engaging contract labour in areas to which the ESI Act is not applicable. In other words, nothing prevents the injured employee from filing a claim against the principal employer alone leaving out the contractor. The injured worker has a choice in proceeding against the principal employer or against the contractor.
With regards
From India, Madras
Dear coligues, for contract labours, w.c. policy is ultimately responsibility of principal employer. Please clerify if any views of yours .
From Canada, Toronto
From Canada, Toronto
Community Support and Knowledge-base on business, career and organisational prospects and issues - Register and Log In to CiteHR and post your query, download formats and be part of a fostered community of professionals.
Notification No G.S.R. 1128(E) Contract Labour (Regulation and Abolition) Central Amendment .pdf
LABOUR CONTRACT AGREEMENT.doc
Contract Labour Act.zip