Coming to the compensation part, I am not sure if the calculation of compensation is correct. Even if we take the age of the employee to be 18, and the wages of the employee to be the maximum under the Act, ie, Rs 8000, the compensation for permanent disablement will be 60% of wages (or 60% of Rs 8000) multiplied by the factor relevant to age of 18 years, ie, 226.38, or Rs 10,86,624.
The step taken by the principal employer cannot be blamed because for him whatever available in hand only can be taken as right and if the Workmen Compensation Commissioner has issued a notice of recovery, he has to obey it. It is for the contractor to take necessary steps to get out of this.
15th February 2018 From India, Kannur
The contention is that the case does not have merit as it does not fall under 1) "it must have been the result of an accident arising out of and in the course of the worker's employment"
2) The complainant was running absent till date of his hospitalization,3) But refereed the last date on which he was present as date of accident.
15th February 2018 From India, Mumbai
From facts described of nature of illness, no accident at site, no occupational disease, no liability attaches to employer for compensation.
16th February 2018 From India, Pune
17th February 2018 From India, Mumbai
I would like to supplement some more development took place in recent past as updated by the contractor. The contractor has been asked to act as per the suggestion received & due discussion with the advocate.
The contractor appointed an Advocate who had appeared before the WC Commissioner and submitted the reply. The advocate pressed before the authority to provide the proof of accident by which this case has been registered. The advocate plead before the authority to drop the case as it is not coming in the ambit of WC " it must have been the result of an accident arising out of and in the course of the worker's employment", which is missing in the instant case.
The advocate of contractor pleaded that the burden of proof is the obligation of the party. Since the onus of proof lies on part of complainant to prove his claim may be directed to provide following documents to rely upon;
The wages slip & bio metric attendance report, first aid report, report on accidents from the Office of the Inspector of Factory, Ambulatory pass from CISF etc. The advocate of workmen filed an application under RTI to get the above information. The WC authority provided 3 week time to submit the information and which was ended 15.01.2019. The claimant could not produce any document that could help him to establish the case. The claimants advocate asked for another two week time. Simultaneously the contractor approached the authority to issue notice to the insurance company as party to the case, as the contractor hold a valid WC policy.
Mr. TK & Nathrao are worth of praise to shade light on the topic and also requested to put further insight since case is not ended yet.
19th February 2018 From India, Mumbai
From facts discussed it is apparent that illness or linjury was not due to employment
A self contained case needs to be placed on record with details if his work and last attendance or work done in factory
Documents regarding his illness needs to be shown as illness type and work are not related
Procedure of proof takes time but cabute done as facts do not justify WC in mind
19th February 2018 From India, Pune