My query is regarding Employee Compensation Act,1923
If an Engineer working in a Pvt Ltd Company Comes under the Definition of \"Employee\" under Employee Compensation Act,1923 or Industrial Disputes Act 1947?
1-If a Software Engg with a Software Company(Pvt Ltd) is an Employee Under Employee Compensation Act,1923?
2-If a Telecom Engg. providing Technical Expertise to a telecom Company is an \"Employee\" under Employee Compensation Act,1923.
If they don\'t come under purview of Employee Compensation Act,1923,then How the Compensation has to be calculated in case of Death of Engineer while in service in above cases?Kindly give any such examples of Calculation of Compensation in case of Death of an Employee by Courts/Companies in India
From India, Delhi
If an Engineer working in a Pvt Ltd Company Comes under the Definition of \"Employee\" under Employee Compensation Act,1923 or Industrial Disputes Act 1947?
1-If a Software Engg with a Software Company(Pvt Ltd) is an Employee Under Employee Compensation Act,1923?
2-If a Telecom Engg. providing Technical Expertise to a telecom Company is an \"Employee\" under Employee Compensation Act,1923.
If they don\'t come under purview of Employee Compensation Act,1923,then How the Compensation has to be calculated in case of Death of Engineer while in service in above cases?Kindly give any such examples of Calculation of Compensation in case of Death of an Employee by Courts/Companies in India
From India, Delhi
the Engineer in both cases will be a Employee under Employee Compensation Act and the calculation shall be done on basis of age factor as mentioned in Schedule attached to Act multiplied by 50 % monthly wages.
if the salary is above Rs 8000/-, then it will be treated as Rs 8000/-.
regards
87if the salary is above Rs 8000/-, then it will be treated as Rs 8000/-.
regards
Dear MR.Arora,
Let me first deal with ur query whether a Software Engineer would be an 'employee' under the Employees Compensation Act,1923.
Pl kindly refer to the definition given in the ACT after the latest amendment in 2009 u/s 2(1)dd. The definition comprising of 3 limbs states who an employee is and distinguishes clearly who is not an employee based up on his capacity of employment.As per the first limb in cl(i), a railway servant not permanently employed in any administrative district or sub-divisional office and not employed in any such capacity specified in Sch.II is an 'employee' under the Act. Similarly, as per the second limb in cl(i)(a) a master, seaman or other member of the crew of a ship registered in India, a captain, or other member of an aircraft registered in India, a person recruited as driver,helper,mechanic,cleaner or in any other capacity in connection with a motor vehicle registered in India and a person recruited for work abroad by a company registered in India are employees under the Act.Finally, the 3rd limb in cl (ii) defines that any person employed in any such capacity as specified in Sch.II other than any person working in the capacity of a member of the Armed Forces of the Union is an 'employee'.From the above it is discernible that a common thread which runs through the entire definition is "the capacity of employment" specified in the Schedule-II AND therefore to be an 'employee' under the Act, a person must be (1) employed by an employer, that is to say there must be master n servant relationship AND (2) must be one whose employment is not merely of a casual nature; but should have been employed for the purposes of trade or business even it is of casual nature.AND (3) must either be a railway servant subject to the qualifications mentioned or must be employed in any one of the capacities specified in Sch-II AND (4) must not be a member of the Armed Forces.Thus it is clear that all these 4 conditions must be satisfied before a person can be said to be an employee under the Act.In this connection the following observations of the Division Bench of the hon'ble High Court of Calcutta in its judgment in Ukhara Farming Corpn Ltd v.Satu Bala Bagini[1954 (II)LLJ-406] would throw more light: "It is to be noticed that the language of the definition is not that the term 'workman' includes certain classes of persons, but that it means them. In other words the definition is exhaustive. If so in order that a person may claim to be a workman within thw meaning of the Act, he must, if he is not a railway servant and therefore does not come under ci(i0 of the definition section, prove that he comes under one or other of the clauses set out in Sch-II." While dealing with the question whether a watchman working under the Official Liquidator could be a workman in Official Liquidator v. K.S.E Board[1990(II)LLJ-321] the hon'ble High Court of Kerala observed as follows quoting the above judgment n others in this regard: " The words"in any such capacity" as is specified in Sch-II clearly indicate that the list given in Sch-II is exhaustive and not illustrative. If the employment is one that would not come under any of the categories mentioned in Sch-II the definition of workman cannot be applied to such an employment." Therefore, the inescapable conclusion, in the light of the foregoing analysis, is that a Software Engineer is not an employee under the Employees Compensation Act,1923.
From India, Salem
Let me first deal with ur query whether a Software Engineer would be an 'employee' under the Employees Compensation Act,1923.
Pl kindly refer to the definition given in the ACT after the latest amendment in 2009 u/s 2(1)dd. The definition comprising of 3 limbs states who an employee is and distinguishes clearly who is not an employee based up on his capacity of employment.As per the first limb in cl(i), a railway servant not permanently employed in any administrative district or sub-divisional office and not employed in any such capacity specified in Sch.II is an 'employee' under the Act. Similarly, as per the second limb in cl(i)(a) a master, seaman or other member of the crew of a ship registered in India, a captain, or other member of an aircraft registered in India, a person recruited as driver,helper,mechanic,cleaner or in any other capacity in connection with a motor vehicle registered in India and a person recruited for work abroad by a company registered in India are employees under the Act.Finally, the 3rd limb in cl (ii) defines that any person employed in any such capacity as specified in Sch.II other than any person working in the capacity of a member of the Armed Forces of the Union is an 'employee'.From the above it is discernible that a common thread which runs through the entire definition is "the capacity of employment" specified in the Schedule-II AND therefore to be an 'employee' under the Act, a person must be (1) employed by an employer, that is to say there must be master n servant relationship AND (2) must be one whose employment is not merely of a casual nature; but should have been employed for the purposes of trade or business even it is of casual nature.AND (3) must either be a railway servant subject to the qualifications mentioned or must be employed in any one of the capacities specified in Sch-II AND (4) must not be a member of the Armed Forces.Thus it is clear that all these 4 conditions must be satisfied before a person can be said to be an employee under the Act.In this connection the following observations of the Division Bench of the hon'ble High Court of Calcutta in its judgment in Ukhara Farming Corpn Ltd v.Satu Bala Bagini[1954 (II)LLJ-406] would throw more light: "It is to be noticed that the language of the definition is not that the term 'workman' includes certain classes of persons, but that it means them. In other words the definition is exhaustive. If so in order that a person may claim to be a workman within thw meaning of the Act, he must, if he is not a railway servant and therefore does not come under ci(i0 of the definition section, prove that he comes under one or other of the clauses set out in Sch-II." While dealing with the question whether a watchman working under the Official Liquidator could be a workman in Official Liquidator v. K.S.E Board[1990(II)LLJ-321] the hon'ble High Court of Kerala observed as follows quoting the above judgment n others in this regard: " The words"in any such capacity" as is specified in Sch-II clearly indicate that the list given in Sch-II is exhaustive and not illustrative. If the employment is one that would not come under any of the categories mentioned in Sch-II the definition of workman cannot be applied to such an employment." Therefore, the inescapable conclusion, in the light of the foregoing analysis, is that a Software Engineer is not an employee under the Employees Compensation Act,1923.
From India, Salem
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.
Employee Appraisal Form new.doc