Thanks for your kind information but i want to clear some doubt which i have with WC and ESI. My doubt is that can employee take benefit from both the body from ESIC and from WC also. if anyone mat with an accident employee can avail benefit from both body..please clear.
If ESI Act is applicable and the workers are covered under this, then WC is irrelevant and need not be taken. While WC covers only for on the job incidents for the worker alone, ESI covers the risk from home to job and back, on the job and for the dependent family members also. It also pays for the medical leave period, maternity leave/expenses etc.
Kindly go through the ESI Act.
2. Further it appears that so far final notification in respect of enhancement of wage ceiling under ESI Act, 1948 has not been issued by the appropriate government.
In the case of General Manager, Karnataka State Road Transport Corporation, Bangalore and Ors. a Division Bench of the Karnataka high Court followed its earlier judgement and reiterated that Section 53 created a bar to the recovery of Compensation under any other law in cases where the insured person had received an employment injury [Air 1972 Mysore 255]. It was held by the Mysore High Court that the right to sue under the Motor Vehicles Act originates from the substantive law, namely, the law of tort.
(A tort, in common law jurisdictions, is a civil wrong that unfairly causes someone else to suffer loss or harm resulting in legal liability for the person who commits the tortious act, called a tortfeasor.)
The Court analysed the provisions of Section 53 of the Act and observed at page 260 as "In the background and context we have to consider the effect of the bar created by Section 53 of the ESI Act. Bar is against receiving or recovering any compensation or damages under the
Workmen's Compensation Act or any other law for the time being in force or otherwise in respect of an employment injury. The bar is absolute as can seen from the use of the word's shall not be entitled to receive or recover, "weather from the employer of the insured person or from
other person", "any compensation or damages" and "under the Workmen's compensation Act, 1923 (8 of 1923) or, any other law for the time being in force or otherwise". The words "employed by the legislature" are clear and unequivocal. When such a bar is created in clear and
express terms it would neither be permissible nor proper to inter a different intention by referring to the previous history of the legislation. That would amount to bypassing the bar and defeating the object of the provision. In view of the clear language of the section we find no justification in interpreting or constructing it as not taking away the right of the workman who is an insured person and an employee under the ESI Act to claim compensation under the Workmen's Compensation Act.
The judgement under appeal in the present case of the Full bench of the Kerala High Court was considered and it was observed that "we cannot agree with some of the assumption and observations made by the Kerala High Court. Section 53 disentitles an employee who wads suffered an employment injury from receiving compensation or damages under the Workmen's Compensation Act or any other law for the time being in force or otherwise. The use of the expression "or Otherwise" would clearly indicate that this section is not limited to ousting the relief claimed only under any status but the workings of the section are such that an insured person would not be entitled to make a claim in Torts which has the force of law under the ESI Act.
As some other members have already pointed out, employees covered under ESIC are not allowed to claim any compensation under WC act (now called Employees Compensation Act, not Workman Compensation Act).
So the insurance company will also refuse to reimburse any compensation towards an employee who is covered under ESIC. Therefore the practice of taking such a policy covering those already under ESIC is a waste of money. Instead the WC Policy should be taken only for those employees who are outside the coverage of ESIC.
Further, its a good idea to take a public liability insurance cover for all those who are visitors, contractors, etc for any accident when they visit your premises or for anything incidental to that visit where you can be held responsible or liable. They are not covered by WC policy as they are not your employees