Dear All, If an employee joined organization 2nd Half and met with accident immediately Q: How employee can avail benefit under ESIC (SAL:10000.00) Regards Mohammed Azeez
From Kuwait, Kuwait
From Kuwait, Kuwait
Mr.Dulkhaid Please confirm whether the accident took place on the date on which the employee joined your company and also whether your organisation is covered by the ESI Act.
From India, Madras
169From India, Madras
DearMr.Mohammed Azeez
From the information furnished by you it is seen that the worker who met with an accident had joined the services of the company and on the day he joined the services of the company he met with an accident. You also say that your organisation is covered by the ESIC. The presumption based on the factual information furnished by you, is that (i)as the new joinee had met with an accident and suffered an employment injury on the day on which he had joined your organisation, you would not have either recovered his ESI contribution. (ii)You would not have also paid employer's contribution in respect of the new joinee. The question that arises is whether in the circumstances under which the ESI contribution had not been recovered or remitted on behalf of the new joinee what are the options available. In BHARAGATH ENGINEERING vs. R. RANGANAYAKI AND ANR. (Appeal (civil) 8623 of 2002) the question before the Honourable Supreme Court related as to who can be treated as an 'insured person' under Section 2(14) of the Employees' State Insurance Act, 1948. In that case an employee of a factory suffered fatal injuries as a result of an accident that arose out of and in the course of his employment. The factory was covered by the ESI Act. The application for registration under the ESI Act in respect of the deceased employee was submitted by the employernafter the death of the employee,the registration for the purpose of ESI was granted subsequent to the death of the employee and at the time the registration for the employee under ESI was granted, the employee was dead. The dependants of the deceased employee claimed compensation under the Workmens Compensation Act as it was then called. The employer contended that as the factory is covered by the ESI Act and as the deceased worker was registered under the ESI Act the Workmens Compensation Act will not apply. The matter was taken upto the level of the Honourable Supreme Court. The Honourable Supreme Court held "the date of payment of contribution is really not very material. In fact, Section 38 of the Act casts a statutory obligation on the employer to insure its employees. That being a statutory obligation, the date of commencement has to be from the date of employment of the concerned employee.- - - - - - - - - For a person who becomes an employee for the first time within the meaning of the Act, the contribution period under Regulation (4) commences from the date of such employment from the contribution period current on that day and corresponding benefit period shall commence on the expiry of the period of nine months from the date of such employment. In cases where employment injuries results in death before the commencement of the first benefit period. Rule 58(2Xb)(ii) provides the method of computation of dependent benefit. It provides for computation of dependent benefits in the case of an employee dying as a result of employment injuries sustained before the first benefit period and before the expiry of the first wage period. - - - - - - - - -When considered in the background of statutory provisions, noted above, the payment of non-payment of contributions and action or non-action prior to or subsequent to the date of accident is really inconsequential. The deceased employee was clearly an 'insured person', as defined in the Act. As the deceased employee has suffered an employment injury as defined under Section 2(8) of the Act and there is no dispute that he was in employment of the employer, by operation of Section 53 of the Act, proceedings under the Compensation Act were excluded statutorily." If the law laid down by the Honourable Supreme Court in the case cited above, is applied to the facts as stated by you, the injured person has to get the benefits from the ESI. Also Please see Rule 57(3)(b) of the Employees State Insurance (Central) Rules. Citation for case law 2002 Supp(5) SCR 642.
With regards
From India, Madras
From the information furnished by you it is seen that the worker who met with an accident had joined the services of the company and on the day he joined the services of the company he met with an accident. You also say that your organisation is covered by the ESIC. The presumption based on the factual information furnished by you, is that (i)as the new joinee had met with an accident and suffered an employment injury on the day on which he had joined your organisation, you would not have either recovered his ESI contribution. (ii)You would not have also paid employer's contribution in respect of the new joinee. The question that arises is whether in the circumstances under which the ESI contribution had not been recovered or remitted on behalf of the new joinee what are the options available. In BHARAGATH ENGINEERING vs. R. RANGANAYAKI AND ANR. (Appeal (civil) 8623 of 2002) the question before the Honourable Supreme Court related as to who can be treated as an 'insured person' under Section 2(14) of the Employees' State Insurance Act, 1948. In that case an employee of a factory suffered fatal injuries as a result of an accident that arose out of and in the course of his employment. The factory was covered by the ESI Act. The application for registration under the ESI Act in respect of the deceased employee was submitted by the employernafter the death of the employee,the registration for the purpose of ESI was granted subsequent to the death of the employee and at the time the registration for the employee under ESI was granted, the employee was dead. The dependants of the deceased employee claimed compensation under the Workmens Compensation Act as it was then called. The employer contended that as the factory is covered by the ESI Act and as the deceased worker was registered under the ESI Act the Workmens Compensation Act will not apply. The matter was taken upto the level of the Honourable Supreme Court. The Honourable Supreme Court held "the date of payment of contribution is really not very material. In fact, Section 38 of the Act casts a statutory obligation on the employer to insure its employees. That being a statutory obligation, the date of commencement has to be from the date of employment of the concerned employee.- - - - - - - - - For a person who becomes an employee for the first time within the meaning of the Act, the contribution period under Regulation (4) commences from the date of such employment from the contribution period current on that day and corresponding benefit period shall commence on the expiry of the period of nine months from the date of such employment. In cases where employment injuries results in death before the commencement of the first benefit period. Rule 58(2Xb)(ii) provides the method of computation of dependent benefit. It provides for computation of dependent benefits in the case of an employee dying as a result of employment injuries sustained before the first benefit period and before the expiry of the first wage period. - - - - - - - - -When considered in the background of statutory provisions, noted above, the payment of non-payment of contributions and action or non-action prior to or subsequent to the date of accident is really inconsequential. The deceased employee was clearly an 'insured person', as defined in the Act. As the deceased employee has suffered an employment injury as defined under Section 2(8) of the Act and there is no dispute that he was in employment of the employer, by operation of Section 53 of the Act, proceedings under the Compensation Act were excluded statutorily." If the law laid down by the Honourable Supreme Court in the case cited above, is applied to the facts as stated by you, the injured person has to get the benefits from the ESI. Also Please see Rule 57(3)(b) of the Employees State Insurance (Central) Rules. Citation for case law 2002 Supp(5) SCR 642.
With regards
From India, Madras
Dear Harikrishanan,
I have been employed with construction industry for a year at corporate office, covered under ESIC. The organization has Workshop Division approximately 20-25 KM away from corporate office and whose salary disbursement and its records are maintained at corporate office. In few days there was routine inspection from I Inspector at workshop division accordingly we have produced relevant documents for inspection. The Inspector submitted report mentioning to avail new sub code to the workshop division.
In this regard I request your say on this.
Pl Note: We have only 6 employees whose salary falls under ambit of ESIC Act. Thanking you.
With Regards
Mohammed Azeez
HR Manager
From Kuwait, Kuwait
I have been employed with construction industry for a year at corporate office, covered under ESIC. The organization has Workshop Division approximately 20-25 KM away from corporate office and whose salary disbursement and its records are maintained at corporate office. In few days there was routine inspection from I Inspector at workshop division accordingly we have produced relevant documents for inspection. The Inspector submitted report mentioning to avail new sub code to the workshop division.
In this regard I request your say on this.
Pl Note: We have only 6 employees whose salary falls under ambit of ESIC Act. Thanking you.
With Regards
Mohammed Azeez
HR Manager
From Kuwait, Kuwait
Dear Mr.Mohammed Azeez
As instructed by the Inspector you have to take a sub code to the workshop division especially when you have employees whose salary fall within the limit prescribed under the ESI Act. Probably as the workshop is situated at 20-25 kms from the corporate office, the Inspector had asked you to take a new sub code.
From India, Madras
As instructed by the Inspector you have to take a sub code to the workshop division especially when you have employees whose salary fall within the limit prescribed under the ESI Act. Probably as the workshop is situated at 20-25 kms from the corporate office, the Inspector had asked you to take a new sub code.
From India, Madras
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.
Bombay Anand Bhavan Restaurant-vs- ESIC SC 2-09-2009.pdf
ESIC Amendment.doc