Saswatabanerjee
Partner - Risk Management
Harsh Kumar Mehta
Consultant In Labour Laws/hr
Panddu123
Hr Executive
PL Kanthan
Proprietor
+1 Other

Thread Started by #srprajapati

Dear Senior,
This is Sunil Prajapati, working as HR Executive in MNC Group, i would like to know that we are covered under ESI act but management wanted to take Workmen Compensation Policy for those employees whose covered under ESIC act. Can we take the WC policy with ESI act..? please guide.
generally where ESIC is applicable we do not want to take Workmen Compensation Policy.
Regards,
Sunil Prajapati
18th November 2016 From India, Mumbai
I also have doubt same. If any one have ESI Gazetted approved copy which esi ceiling is increased to 21000/-. Please send me : kpnrathod.hr@gmail.com Thanks
18th November 2016 From India, Hyderabad
WC Act came in 1923 place and applicable to all the establishment and ESI Act came in to force later in 1948. WC is applicable to all. but when ESIC is applicable it surpasses all the coverage for employees. so if any establishment is having both no issue. it will be beneficial to employees.
19th November 2016 From India, Mumbai
Dear Bijayakumar,
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.
Regards,
Sunil Prajapati
19th November 2016 From India, Mumbai
Mr. Sunil Prajapati,
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.
Tks
PL kanthan
19th November 2016 From India, Thane
1. Sir, Sections 53 and 61 bars employees to get benefits under both the Acts ( i.e. under ESI Act as well as under Employees' Compensation Act, 1923). Moreover, question also arises as to why the employer should pay for employees compensation under Compensation Act, 1961 when he is already contributing under ESI Act in respect of said employee ?
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.
20th November 2016 From India, Noida
Dear Mr. srprajapati,

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.

Refer https://accountscadrecsir.wordpress....nsation-claim/

 

Regards,
20th November 2016 From India, Pune
Sunil Prajapati
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
6th January 2017 From India, Mumbai
Reply (Add What You Know) Start New Discussion

Cite.Co - is a repository of information created by your industry peers and experienced seniors. Register Here and help by adding your inputs to this topic/query page.
Prime Sponsor: TALENTEDGE - Certification Courses for career growth from top institutes like IIM / XLRI direct to device (online digital learning)





About Us Advertise Contact Us
Privacy Policy Disclaimer Terms Of Service



All rights reserved @ 2017 Cite.Co™