How to Move in the matter of Workman Compensation: The information is given below as has been briefed to me. One workman who was lying in his residence in a bad condition due to sickness . Some fellow workmen of the group requested their contractor to help the sick person. The contractor on humanitarian grounds, admitted the sick workman in a hospital. The sick person was diagnosed with neuro-disorder for high blood pressure. The workman discharged from the hospital once he recuperated.
The workman remained on the rolls of the contractor till the closure of the contract. Now the contractor received a notice from the WC Commissioner after a span of 23 months through the principal employer for payment of compensation to the tune of 16 lacs. The workman filed the copy of hospital papers with the WC Commissioner. The Principal Employer has already informed the authority that No accident had occurred on the particular date mentioned in petition. But the principal employer held the payment that was due to the contractor and asked payment can only be released after the matter is resolved.
From India, Mumbai
589The workman remained on the rolls of the contractor till the closure of the contract. Now the contractor received a notice from the WC Commissioner after a span of 23 months through the principal employer for payment of compensation to the tune of 16 lacs. The workman filed the copy of hospital papers with the WC Commissioner. The Principal Employer has already informed the authority that No accident had occurred on the particular date mentioned in petition. But the principal employer held the payment that was due to the contractor and asked payment can only be released after the matter is resolved.
From India, Mumbai
The Workmen Compensation Commission cannot issue an order without giving the employer (the contractor) an opportunity to be heard. The incident has nothing to do with employment and as such no compensation can be awarded in such cases. In order to be eligible for compensation under WC Act the incident should have occurred during employment. In this case the employee had the neurological disorder while at his residence.
Coming to the compensation part, I am not sure if the calculation of compensation is correct. Even if we take the age of the employee to be 18, and the wages of the employee to be the maximum under the Act, ie, Rs 8000, the compensation for permanent disablement will be 60% of wages (or 60% of Rs 8000) multiplied by the factor relevant to age of 18 years, ie, 226.38, or Rs 10,86,624.
The step taken by the principal employer cannot be blamed because for him whatever available in hand only can be taken as right and if the Workmen Compensation Commissioner has issued a notice of recovery, he has to obey it. It is for the contractor to take necessary steps to get out of this.
From India, Kannur
Coming to the compensation part, I am not sure if the calculation of compensation is correct. Even if we take the age of the employee to be 18, and the wages of the employee to be the maximum under the Act, ie, Rs 8000, the compensation for permanent disablement will be 60% of wages (or 60% of Rs 8000) multiplied by the factor relevant to age of 18 years, ie, 226.38, or Rs 10,86,624.
The step taken by the principal employer cannot be blamed because for him whatever available in hand only can be taken as right and if the Workmen Compensation Commissioner has issued a notice of recovery, he has to obey it. It is for the contractor to take necessary steps to get out of this.
From India, Kannur
Mr TK your apprehension is right, no order was passed rather a notice calculated on basis of information provided by the workmen including medical expenses tune to 4 lacs.
The contention is that the case does not have merit as it does not fall under 1) "it must have been the result of an accident arising out of and in the course of the worker's employment"
2) The complainant was running absent till date of his hospitalization,3) But refereed the last date on which he was present as date of accident.
From India, Mumbai
The contention is that the case does not have merit as it does not fall under 1) "it must have been the result of an accident arising out of and in the course of the worker's employment"
2) The complainant was running absent till date of his hospitalization,3) But refereed the last date on which he was present as date of accident.
From India, Mumbai
Whatever be the facts of the case, since notice is received from concerned Govt authorities, employer has to reply in legal manner.
From facts described of nature of illness, no accident at site, no occupational disease, no liability attaches to employer for compensation.
From India, Pune
From facts described of nature of illness, no accident at site, no occupational disease, no liability attaches to employer for compensation.
From India, Pune
Thanks Mr TK & Mr Nathrao. However the reply already been done and the Advocate appeared and asked to provide to provide some documents thru the WC Commisioner to rely upon the matter by workmen biometric attendance, first aid report,report on accidents from inspector of Fac tory , Ambulatory pass from CISF etc. The workmen can't not able to make it as a false one. The workmen advocate made an application under RTI to have above information but got no documents
From India, Mumbai
From India, Mumbai
Dear colleagues,
I would like to supplement some more development took place in recent past as updated by the contractor. The contractor has been asked to act as per the suggestion received & due discussion with the advocate.
The contractor appointed an Advocate who had appeared before the WC Commissioner and submitted the reply. The advocate pressed before the authority to provide the proof of accident by which this case has been registered. The advocate plead before the authority to drop the case as it is not coming in the ambit of WC " it must have been the result of an accident arising out of and in the course of the worker's employment", which is missing in the instant case.
The advocate of contractor pleaded that the burden of proof is the obligation of the party. Since the onus of proof lies on part of complainant to prove his claim may be directed to provide following documents to rely upon;
The wages slip & bio metric attendance report, first aid report, report on accidents from the Office of the Inspector of Factory, Ambulatory pass from CISF etc. The advocate of workmen filed an application under RTI to get the above information. The WC authority provided 3 week time to submit the information and which was ended 15.01.2019. The claimant could not produce any document that could help him to establish the case. The claimants advocate asked for another two week time. Simultaneously the contractor approached the authority to issue notice to the insurance company as party to the case, as the contractor hold a valid WC policy.
Mr. TK & Nathrao are worth of praise to shade light on the topic and also requested to put further insight since case is not ended yet.
From India, Mumbai
I would like to supplement some more development took place in recent past as updated by the contractor. The contractor has been asked to act as per the suggestion received & due discussion with the advocate.
The contractor appointed an Advocate who had appeared before the WC Commissioner and submitted the reply. The advocate pressed before the authority to provide the proof of accident by which this case has been registered. The advocate plead before the authority to drop the case as it is not coming in the ambit of WC " it must have been the result of an accident arising out of and in the course of the worker's employment", which is missing in the instant case.
The advocate of contractor pleaded that the burden of proof is the obligation of the party. Since the onus of proof lies on part of complainant to prove his claim may be directed to provide following documents to rely upon;
The wages slip & bio metric attendance report, first aid report, report on accidents from the Office of the Inspector of Factory, Ambulatory pass from CISF etc. The advocate of workmen filed an application under RTI to get the above information. The WC authority provided 3 week time to submit the information and which was ended 15.01.2019. The claimant could not produce any document that could help him to establish the case. The claimants advocate asked for another two week time. Simultaneously the contractor approached the authority to issue notice to the insurance company as party to the case, as the contractor hold a valid WC policy.
Mr. TK & Nathrao are worth of praise to shade light on the topic and also requested to put further insight since case is not ended yet.
From India, Mumbai
PE is taking steps as a matter if abundant precaution
From facts discussed it is apparent that illness or linjury was not due to employment
A self contained case needs to be placed on record with details if his work and last attendance or work done in factory
Documents regarding his illness needs to be shown as illness type and work are not related
Procedure of proof takes time but cabute done as facts do not justify WC in mind
From India, Pune
From facts discussed it is apparent that illness or linjury was not due to employment
A self contained case needs to be placed on record with details if his work and last attendance or work done in factory
Documents regarding his illness needs to be shown as illness type and work are not related
Procedure of proof takes time but cabute done as facts do not justify WC in mind
From India, Pune
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.
Case Study on Promotion.pdf
Case study.doc