Giving medical allowance or its reimbursement is not an excuse for denying compensation under EC Act.After the 2010 amendment to EC Act the employer shall reimburse the medical expenses incurred by the employee meeting with employment injury ,in addition to the amount of compensation.
Varghese Mathew
From India, Thiruvananthapuram
910Varghese Mathew
From India, Thiruvananthapuram
You have to get exemption from ESIC office/govt. in that case.Normally if any organsation gives better facilities more than ESIC then only they get exemption order. Otherwise ESIC is mandatory.
From India, Mumbai
From India, Mumbai
Dear all,
Employee in implemented areas may not be coverable under ESI Act due to 2 reasons: 1) the org manpower is low (10 for factory / 20 for others) and as such it is not coverable, 2) if the manpower is more and employee draws wages in excess of Rs. 15000 per month either at time of joining or at beginning of new contribution period.
Liabilities of likely accidents of such employees will have to be covered by ONLY obtaining Employee Compensation policy; accident policy /medi-claim policy may not be able to cover the liabilities. The policy can be discussed with any general insurance company.
Employee Compensation Act is about compensating for loss of earning capacity due to an accident, it goes beyond mere cost of medical treatment due to an accident. As such accident policy /medi-claim policy may not be adequate to cover cost of compensation to be paid.
Shrikant Prabhudesai
From India, Mumbai
Employee in implemented areas may not be coverable under ESI Act due to 2 reasons: 1) the org manpower is low (10 for factory / 20 for others) and as such it is not coverable, 2) if the manpower is more and employee draws wages in excess of Rs. 15000 per month either at time of joining or at beginning of new contribution period.
Liabilities of likely accidents of such employees will have to be covered by ONLY obtaining Employee Compensation policy; accident policy /medi-claim policy may not be able to cover the liabilities. The policy can be discussed with any general insurance company.
Employee Compensation Act is about compensating for loss of earning capacity due to an accident, it goes beyond mere cost of medical treatment due to an accident. As such accident policy /medi-claim policy may not be adequate to cover cost of compensation to be paid.
Shrikant Prabhudesai
From India, Mumbai
People have inappropriate preceptions that wherein ESI Act is applicable EC Act is not applicable. this is not the case, both Acts are applicable.
for employees covered under ESI Act ( having 15K salary) & EC Act, the employee only can claim compensation in either of one Act. Due to the bar imposed by section 61 under ESI Act, meaning thereby those employee covered by ESI Act can not claim similar benefit which he has been entitled in any other applicable law means EC Act or any other.
the real issue is not applicability but bar on claiming compensation. That the reasaon employee covered under ESI Act in ESI implemented area are kept out of perview of EC Act ( means EC policy).
in my view post 2010 amendemnt in EC Act as earlier it was WC Act wherein word "workman" has been replaced by "Employee", and due to other major changes it became applicable to all employees irrespective of designation.
Secondly GPA/Medical Policy are not valid from EC Act point of view, the employee need to go for EC Policy. Though the Act does not mandatorly precribed for Insurance Policy but to shift self liability and avoid risk of huge payment , it is always advisable to have EC Policy.
So for such employee those are not covered under ESI Act either due to non implemented area of ESI or due to out of salary coverage better to have a blanket coverage under EC Policy.
for employees covered under ESI Act ( having 15K salary) & EC Act, the employee only can claim compensation in either of one Act. Due to the bar imposed by section 61 under ESI Act, meaning thereby those employee covered by ESI Act can not claim similar benefit which he has been entitled in any other applicable law means EC Act or any other.
the real issue is not applicability but bar on claiming compensation. That the reasaon employee covered under ESI Act in ESI implemented area are kept out of perview of EC Act ( means EC policy).
in my view post 2010 amendemnt in EC Act as earlier it was WC Act wherein word "workman" has been replaced by "Employee", and due to other major changes it became applicable to all employees irrespective of designation.
Secondly GPA/Medical Policy are not valid from EC Act point of view, the employee need to go for EC Policy. Though the Act does not mandatorly precribed for Insurance Policy but to shift self liability and avoid risk of huge payment , it is always advisable to have EC Policy.
So for such employee those are not covered under ESI Act either due to non implemented area of ESI or due to out of salary coverage better to have a blanket coverage under EC Policy.
Dear Sh.Essykkr,
In your remarks ,as above, you have mentioned the provisions of Section 61 of ESI Act and stated that "People have inappropriate preceptions that wherein ESI Act is applicable EC Act is not applicable. this is not the case, both Acts are applicable".
In this connection, I will like to point out that under section 53 of the said Act there is specific bar against receiving benefits under Employees' Compensation Act, 1923.
You have further stated that"in my view post 2010 amendemnt in EC Act as earlier it was WC Act wherein word "workman" has been replaced by "Employee", and due to other major changes it became applicable to all employees irrespective of designation".
In this connection, I may submit that under Employees' Compensation Act, 1923 only those employees are entitled for compensation who have been defined as "employee" under section 2(dd) and Schedule-II of said Act and not all employees as mentioned by you.
From India, Noida
In your remarks ,as above, you have mentioned the provisions of Section 61 of ESI Act and stated that "People have inappropriate preceptions that wherein ESI Act is applicable EC Act is not applicable. this is not the case, both Acts are applicable".
In this connection, I will like to point out that under section 53 of the said Act there is specific bar against receiving benefits under Employees' Compensation Act, 1923.
You have further stated that"in my view post 2010 amendemnt in EC Act as earlier it was WC Act wherein word "workman" has been replaced by "Employee", and due to other major changes it became applicable to all employees irrespective of designation".
In this connection, I may submit that under Employees' Compensation Act, 1923 only those employees are entitled for compensation who have been defined as "employee" under section 2(dd) and Schedule-II of said Act and not all employees as mentioned by you.
From India, Noida
sorry section 53 of ESI Act accidently left out or could not point out.
For applicability of EC Act as mentioned by you shall be as per schedule appended but here is difference of opinion in legal fratinity have discussed this issie number times with consultans and senior they said it applicable to all otherwise what the essence of word employee instead of workmen people in industry though i am also of the view earlier without amendment in schedule its not correct to say that it cover all employee irresptive of designation.
would request other fellow members to through some light on this. its matter of debate..because ptherwisw what was the use changing its name or what was intension of the legislatures. aAs its name suggest and keeping in view of BPO IT ITES companies changing work force senerio it was amended.
anyway lets have clear view of others.
For applicability of EC Act as mentioned by you shall be as per schedule appended but here is difference of opinion in legal fratinity have discussed this issie number times with consultans and senior they said it applicable to all otherwise what the essence of word employee instead of workmen people in industry though i am also of the view earlier without amendment in schedule its not correct to say that it cover all employee irresptive of designation.
would request other fellow members to through some light on this. its matter of debate..because ptherwisw what was the use changing its name or what was intension of the legislatures. aAs its name suggest and keeping in view of BPO IT ITES companies changing work force senerio it was amended.
anyway lets have clear view of others.
When the EC Act defines "employee" and schedule II gives the list of such employees why legal fraternity have doubt?If the intention of legislature was to cover all employed person other than IPs it could have framed such definition and repeal schedule II.
Varghese Mathew
From India, Thiruvananthapuram
Varghese Mathew
From India, Thiruvananthapuram
As Mr.Harsh kumar and Verghese Mathew pointed out, there is no confusion as to coverage of employees under EC Act. It is only those employees that are employed in those capacities as explained in Schedule II to the Act that are covered but not all employees.since the Schedule II to amended Act extends coverage to more employees than those under the old Schedule, the Act was renamed as Employees Compensation Act to reflect this extended coverage.
B.Saikumar
In-House HR & IR Advisor
From India, Mumbai
B.Saikumar
In-House HR & IR Advisor
From India, Mumbai
Would like to know , if a person working in company in marketing dept, is entitled to get any compensation for the accidents occurred during the course of performing his duties (traveling for company's work), and he is not covered under ESI.
Thanks
Annon
From India, Ghaziabad
Thanks
Annon
From India, Ghaziabad
Dear Annon,
Yes, such employee is entitled to receive compensation as per provisions of Employee Compensation Act, 1923, the act was earlier known as Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923.
It is essential for such org to cover such liabilities by obtaining Employee Compensation Policy available with any general insurance companies. Should a young employee meet with a serious accident, the payment of compensation may run into lakhs of rupees as such salaries would be Rs. 15000 + per month.
ESIC continues to pay pension to nominees every month as per rules, whereas here it is one time payment based on loss of earning capacity as detailed in the Act.
Shrikant
From India, Mumbai
Yes, such employee is entitled to receive compensation as per provisions of Employee Compensation Act, 1923, the act was earlier known as Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923.
It is essential for such org to cover such liabilities by obtaining Employee Compensation Policy available with any general insurance companies. Should a young employee meet with a serious accident, the payment of compensation may run into lakhs of rupees as such salaries would be Rs. 15000 + per month.
ESIC continues to pay pension to nominees every month as per rules, whereas here it is one time payment based on loss of earning capacity as detailed in the Act.
Shrikant
From India, Mumbai
Community Support and Knowledge-base on business, career and organisational prospects and issues - Register and Log In to CiteHR and post your query, download formats and be part of a fostered community of professionals.
HR managers being taught how to deal with employees in times of slowdown.pdf
For Sitting Managers.ppt
Job Work-outwork employees.docx