We are overlooking Sec 3 (2) of the ECA. It says :
(3) (2) "If an *[employee] employed in any employment specified in Part A of Schedule III contracts any disease specified therein as an occupational disease ........."
Thus unless central government specify, it will not fall within section 3 (2). There many more riders in the section.
However, the like heart attacks / strokes, if could be relate to the employment, compensation may attract. Labour jurisprudence follows the principle of preponderance...hence, these are the documents and evidence available with employer and employee will decide whether it will cover under the ECA. If employee could prove that employer while permitted to operate the facility, did not follow the rules and guidelines for social distancing, personal hygiene, disinfection of work places, transports, provisions of masks, hand washing etc. or did not conduct awareness programmes, which might have attributed to infection resulting in the covid-19 to him, he may get compensation. Similarly, if employer can prove it otherwise by documents and other substantial evidences, that compliance was made, the liability cannot be fastened on him. In short, each case will go on its merit. Thus employers must be particular in documentation. Whatever, they do, that must be documented.
P K Jadia
Labour Law Consultant, Silvassa, UT of DNH and DD
9687625260, [Login to view]