What is the liability of the principal employer if an temporary worker (say employed for 7 days to do painting job) dies in the premises?
From India, Mumbai
Acknowledge(0)
Amend(0)
From India, Mumbai
Acknowledge(0)Amend(0)
First of all, we should find out the reason for death, i.e., natural or due to an accident. If it is an accident, then the employer is liable for paying compensation as per the Workmen's Compensation Act, irrespective of his stature, i.e., contract/casual/regular/temporary. If the employee is covered under the ESIC scheme, then the ESI will take care. However, on humanitarian grounds, the employer needs to pay some amount to the kith and kin of the employee.
Regards,
Kamesh
From India, Hyderabad
Acknowledge(0)Amend(0)
191Regards,
Kamesh
From India, Hyderabad
Acknowledge(0)Amend(0)
Dear Hemant,
Subject: Painter Compensation for Injury
In order to be eligible for compensation under the Employees Compensation Act, the workman shall be employed in any of the jobs specified under the Schedule to the Act, and the injury must have arisen out of and in the course of employment. Assuming that the principal employer's establishment is covered under the scheduled employment and the injury is caused in the course of employment, the painter will be construed as a workman irrespective of the number of days he was in the employment of the principal employer, since painting is construed as repair within the meaning of item (viii) of Schedule II appended to the Act. You can refer to the following case:
1) Kamal Devi V. Bengal National Textile Mills Ltd, Calcutta 1975 II LLJ 81 (Cal HC).
Regards,
B. Saikumar
HR & Labour Law Consultant
Chipinbiz Consultancy Pvt. Ltd
Mumbai
[Phone Number Removed For Privacy Reasons]
From India, Mumbai
Acknowledge(0)Amend(0)
Subject: Painter Compensation for Injury
In order to be eligible for compensation under the Employees Compensation Act, the workman shall be employed in any of the jobs specified under the Schedule to the Act, and the injury must have arisen out of and in the course of employment. Assuming that the principal employer's establishment is covered under the scheduled employment and the injury is caused in the course of employment, the painter will be construed as a workman irrespective of the number of days he was in the employment of the principal employer, since painting is construed as repair within the meaning of item (viii) of Schedule II appended to the Act. You can refer to the following case:
1) Kamal Devi V. Bengal National Textile Mills Ltd, Calcutta 1975 II LLJ 81 (Cal HC).
Regards,
B. Saikumar
HR & Labour Law Consultant
Chipinbiz Consultancy Pvt. Ltd
Mumbai
[Phone Number Removed For Privacy Reasons]
From India, Mumbai
Acknowledge(0)Amend(0)
As rightly said by Kamesh, it is necessary to find out the reason for the death before awarding any compensation.
Under Section 3(1), it has to be established that there was some causal connection between the death of the workman and his employment. If the workman dies as a natural result of the disease which he was suffering or while suffering from a particular disease he dies of that disease as a result of wear and tear of the employment, no liability would be fixed upon the employer. But if the employment is a contributory cause or has accelerated the death, or if the death was due not only to the disease but also the disease coupled with the employment, then it can be said that the death arose out of the employment and the employer would be liable.
In a case, the workman had been suffering from a chest disease and was previously being treated for such a disease. The High Court also noted that the job of the deceased was only to switch on or off, and therefore, the doctor had clearly opined that there was no scope for any stress or strain in his duties. In such a case, the Supreme Court held that death did not arise out of and in the course of employment. [Jyothi Ademma v. Plant Engineer, Nellore, (2006) 5 SCC 513]
From India, Madras
Acknowledge(0)Amend(0)
Under Section 3(1), it has to be established that there was some causal connection between the death of the workman and his employment. If the workman dies as a natural result of the disease which he was suffering or while suffering from a particular disease he dies of that disease as a result of wear and tear of the employment, no liability would be fixed upon the employer. But if the employment is a contributory cause or has accelerated the death, or if the death was due not only to the disease but also the disease coupled with the employment, then it can be said that the death arose out of the employment and the employer would be liable.
In a case, the workman had been suffering from a chest disease and was previously being treated for such a disease. The High Court also noted that the job of the deceased was only to switch on or off, and therefore, the doctor had clearly opined that there was no scope for any stress or strain in his duties. In such a case, the Supreme Court held that death did not arise out of and in the course of employment. [Jyothi Ademma v. Plant Engineer, Nellore, (2006) 5 SCC 513]
From India, Madras
Acknowledge(0)Amend(0)CiteHR is an AI-augmented HR knowledge and collaboration platform, enabling HR professionals to solve real-world challenges, validate decisions, and stay ahead through collective intelligence and machine-enhanced guidance. Join Our Platform.
Employee's Compensation Act-2009.pdf
THE EMPLOYEE COMPENSATION ACT.docx