Dear Sid,
The difference you gave me is informative for freshers and students and not experienced professionals. I should not have replied to you the way I did because you are still in the theoretical state and not very clear about the applicability. Do you ever contribute or put your comments and suggestions to the various Labour Laws Review Board set up by the Government? I think you do not. You are still into reading the Statutes, not the Law Commissions report or Parliament Speeches.
Anyway, I will try to differentiate between ESI and WC.
WC was enacted by the British keeping in view the ILO movement, which was going on around the world. To build up an international progressive image after World War I, the US, Britain, and other countries started the ILO movement. In 1923, the British Government enacted the Law to show their intent and sincerity regarding the movement.
The ESI was enacted with a view to provide not only Insurance Coverage but also treatment. The Act shows the transition from a colonial government whose intention was to be just humane in the international arena to a sovereign government who cared about its people. The Government of India, with a view towards a socialist economy, introduced this legislation which not only gives compensation on death and disablement but also provides treatment to the worker and his/her dependants at a very nominal cost through a comprehensive insurance policy where both the employee, employer, and Government contributed. The setting up of the ESIC was actually a fulfillment of one of the socialist commitments of our Government.
The covering of the whole of India and administering the whole scheme at one go was virtually impossible at that time, keeping in mind our economy and administration. The Government decided to go along with the Coverage of ESI in a phased manner. If you look at the Act, it says it extends to the whole of India.
Actually, the main aim of ESI is not just compensation but both Compensation and treatment. So, the building up of Treatment facilities (Infrastructure) is the reason ESI has not achieved full coverage. The logic is simple: you cannot make someone pay in full and provide partial services. Hence, in places where the ESIC had not been able to provide Treatment facilities, it has kept the coverage out.
Another important concept here is that no section debars the payment of WC, in addition to ESI. What it debars is that an employee cannot claim benefits under both legislatures OR, the other way round, an employer cannot be forced to pay benefits under both acts. It is a protection given to the Employers. So, SID, if your imaginary company pays both ESI and WC together to the imaginary deceased employee VOLUNTARILY, there is no bar. Remember the basic concept: you cannot debar anyone from giving more benefits, doing more welfare, or providing better security to the working classes in and above the statute. You cannot pay less. But the Imaginary dependants of the imaginary deceased employee of your Imaginary Company cannot claim benefits under both acts.
The last thing I would like to state is that you have never faced a death/disablement case in your service life.
If you want to clear your ideas, simply ask. Please don't set up an imaginary situation and make a mockery of yourself.
As for the Maternity Benefit Act, you need not be naughty to gain knowledge. The Maternity Benefit Act was the result of one of the series of legislation enacted by the Indian Government as a part of its commitment as an ILO founder member to the plight of Women Workers in the workplace. The whole idea was to give equal opportunity and protect women from exploitation in the workplace. Previously, during pregnancy, either the women workers were sacked or forced to work during the advanced stages, which resulted in increased death, infant mortality, and unhealthy babies. This resulted from either the hard work the mother had to do at her place of work or due to undernourishment from the loss of a job. Hence, the objective of the Act was to protect the woman and her child, not to uphold social morality.
Regards,
SC