Accident Met In Company Transport

1. Sir, thanks Mr. Umakanthan ji for remarks as above. However, the initiator of this thread has mentioned as "I met with an accident in company transport". In my opinion, let the initiator of this thread explain the facts on the issues as raised by me. In addition, the question will also arise whether the said accident occurred out of and in the course of employment ?.
2. Sir, as you may have experienced, many times, in cases under Employees' Compensation Act, the employer put forward his defense in the case that in his establishment ESI Act, 1948 is applicable and the employee who is claiming compensation was also covered under ESI Act, 1948. In such situation particularly as per provisions of section 53 of ESI Act, 1948, the Hon'ble Labour Court or appropriate court has no alternative except to dismiss the case filed by the employee.

Your view-point is also correct Mr.Harshkumar when the simultaneous application of both the EC Act,1923 and the ESI Act,1948 to one and the same industrial establishment is possible because of its location and the difference in the earnings of the employees computable for the purpose of insurance cover under the latter and if the poster's employment was under the transport company. In such a typical situation, the employer will certainly adopt such a defence to disown his liability as brought out by you. Unfortunately many of the posters lack language skill particularly in English when they draft their queries and inadvertently leave out vital informations giving room for communication gaps as you have rightly mentioned.So at times we have to offer our remarks based only on positive inference.

Thank you all for the assistance. . just that m not aware of any labour lawyer in my area (bhandup, mumbai).. Can anyone please help me with any contact for the same ?.

Dear Friend,

Herein, it seems the employee met with accident on company transport...it is not clear whether on board or on road, if the employee on board while travelling it is very much/attributed - connected to company at service.. the injury connected is required to be observed for its benefits in accordance to the schedule of injury suffered, however, if the employee could not perform the same job/service incapacitated the benefits should go fully to the employee, in that case the organisation may give a compensatory appointment to the next of kin by reducing the benefit..also, such cases will term to pension benefits (compensation pension benefits) and the employee permanently get these benefits under EPF rules further, a medical board should be constituted for granting such benefits as the accident is the prime cause attributed to permanent incapacitation of the employee.

If on road while crossing, while coming to the organisation or going to after performance of service, the case entirely turn to be different and the owner of the transport have to compensate, after conducting inquiry/enquiry if the injury incapacited the employee the organisation may refer the case to the EPF authorities by recommention pension benefits provided the authorities consider the case for incapacitation on due verifying with medical authorities, in both the cases the benefits may differ, also the company have no obligation to take the next of kin under its umbrella for employment. The attribution of injury may be a cause of unemployment the responsibility squarely rest with the employee and the transport (private) transport authorities...

In either way unless we record the statement of imputations/statements of employee and other related factors we may certainly cannot come into a conclusion. (the rules and regulations are EPF rules, Insurance rules, Pension rules, Organisation State Accidents and Incidents (Employee Compensation Act), Medical Board (Permanent/temporary injuries), etc.,)

best of luck...