Dear sir,
One of our workmen resigned from his job and was relieved two years ago after he met with an industrial accident. He was compensated under the Employee Compensation Act before the relevant authorities for the said accident. However, after a gap of 2.5 years, he has now made a demand to the management for further compensation, citing that he was not suitably compensated.
My query in this regard is whether the workman has the right to claim further relief legally from the management, apart from the compensation that was already paid to him. Can he approach any other forum to make a further claim?
I would appreciate the views of experts on this matter.
Thank you.
From India, Mumbai
Acknowledge(0)
Amend(0)
25One of our workmen resigned from his job and was relieved two years ago after he met with an industrial accident. He was compensated under the Employee Compensation Act before the relevant authorities for the said accident. However, after a gap of 2.5 years, he has now made a demand to the management for further compensation, citing that he was not suitably compensated.
My query in this regard is whether the workman has the right to claim further relief legally from the management, apart from the compensation that was already paid to him. Can he approach any other forum to make a further claim?
I would appreciate the views of experts on this matter.
Thank you.
From India, Mumbai
Acknowledge(0)Amend(0)
We presume that you might have taken an acknowledgment in writing from the employee that by accepting this amount as compensation, no further amount is due to him, payable by the company in the F&F settlement form.
Why is he silent for 2.5 years?
From India, Aizawl
Acknowledge(1)
Amend(0)
Why is he silent for 2.5 years?
From India, Aizawl
Acknowledge(1)Amend(0)
Dear V Sridhar,
If the compensation under the "Employee Compensation Act" was routed through the authority concerned, then there must have been due diligence before disbursement of the payment. Now, after 2.5 years, if the employee says that he was under-compensated, has he given a breakup of his calculation to prove how he was given less compensation? If the claim is not tenable, then you can give a reply accordingly. You may call him for the meeting and explain your method of calculation. Understand from him his method of calculation. A personal meeting always helps in clearing the doubts. Nevertheless, whatever the outcome of the meeting may be, both parties must agree to sign the minutes of the meeting.
Thanks,
Dinesh Divekar
From India, Bangalore
Acknowledge(1)Amend(0)
If the compensation under the "Employee Compensation Act" was routed through the authority concerned, then there must have been due diligence before disbursement of the payment. Now, after 2.5 years, if the employee says that he was under-compensated, has he given a breakup of his calculation to prove how he was given less compensation? If the claim is not tenable, then you can give a reply accordingly. You may call him for the meeting and explain your method of calculation. Understand from him his method of calculation. A personal meeting always helps in clearing the doubts. Nevertheless, whatever the outcome of the meeting may be, both parties must agree to sign the minutes of the meeting.
Thanks,
Dinesh Divekar
From India, Bangalore
Acknowledge(1)Amend(0)
In this case, the employee's compensation amount is paid to him after the case runs before the Authority court as per procedure, or simply after a 10(A) notice of the accident occurrence is reported to the local labor department and settled before conducting the court of Authority.
Why I am saying this
Recently, an accidental death happened in a company, and the management paid on the spot to the bereaved family through cheques. Later, before the conciliation Authority court, the management submitted already paid cheques, which is deferred by the E.C. Act sections.
So, if everything is paid only before the Authority court, the employee has no right to go further. If payment was done through an out-of-court settlement and approached the Authority court and closed the matter as per the EC Act, the employee may go again for any such other coverage.
From India, Nellore
Acknowledge(1)Amend(0)
Why I am saying this
Recently, an accidental death happened in a company, and the management paid on the spot to the bereaved family through cheques. Later, before the conciliation Authority court, the management submitted already paid cheques, which is deferred by the E.C. Act sections.
So, if everything is paid only before the Authority court, the employee has no right to go further. If payment was done through an out-of-court settlement and approached the Authority court and closed the matter as per the EC Act, the employee may go again for any such other coverage.
From India, Nellore
Acknowledge(1)Amend(0)
I may add to what is stated by other members. My views are:
1. To examine whether there is an error in the calculation of accident compensation.
2. To examine whether there is a delay in the settlement of compensation. If yes, whether any interest was accrued and paid.
3. There is a possibility: Was the demand for additional compensation emanating from the fact that the injury sustained in the course of an industrial accident aggravated further subsequent to the severance of employment, resulting in a feeling in their minds that there arises a need to revisit the workings of the compensation being inadequate?
4. To examine if the additional claim is found to be reasonable/justifiable and whether the 'law of limitations' is attracted to it or not.
Notwithstanding the above, no one can stop the claimant from making their claim if they persist, irrespective of whether it is justifiable/tenable or not legally. I am not able to find enough judgments/articles/references to these relevant questions as above to conclusively say what's what.
From India, Bangalore
Acknowledge(1)Amend(0)
1. To examine whether there is an error in the calculation of accident compensation.
2. To examine whether there is a delay in the settlement of compensation. If yes, whether any interest was accrued and paid.
3. There is a possibility: Was the demand for additional compensation emanating from the fact that the injury sustained in the course of an industrial accident aggravated further subsequent to the severance of employment, resulting in a feeling in their minds that there arises a need to revisit the workings of the compensation being inadequate?
4. To examine if the additional claim is found to be reasonable/justifiable and whether the 'law of limitations' is attracted to it or not.
Notwithstanding the above, no one can stop the claimant from making their claim if they persist, irrespective of whether it is justifiable/tenable or not legally. I am not able to find enough judgments/articles/references to these relevant questions as above to conclusively say what's what.
From India, Bangalore
Acknowledge(1)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