Dear all Notional extnsion will be applicable and the employee will getthe compensesation. n.e is applicable both ESI & WC The distance cover is 10 km between work place and home Regards Subhas
From India, Mumbai
From India, Mumbai
Dear Friends,
To make it clear I will give three examples:
Company A provided bus to all of their employees for pick up and droping of their employees. If any accident occured to the bus during the journey - the employer is responsible.
Mr. X who is working in company A going to office by bike met with an accident and suffered with major injuries. - The employer is not responsible.
Mr. Y working as a Marketing executive in company A met with an accident and died while going to meet a client - The employer is resposible
Regards,
Rajendra Prasad
From India, Warangal
15To make it clear I will give three examples:
Company A provided bus to all of their employees for pick up and droping of their employees. If any accident occured to the bus during the journey - the employer is responsible.
Mr. X who is working in company A going to office by bike met with an accident and suffered with major injuries. - The employer is not responsible.
Mr. Y working as a Marketing executive in company A met with an accident and died while going to meet a client - The employer is resposible
Regards,
Rajendra Prasad
From India, Warangal
In my opinion "out of and in the course of his employment" includes journey to office and back from office to home. Reproduced below is is the phrase from Workman Compensation Act:
Employer's Liability For Compensation
1. The employer of any establishment covered under this Act, is required to compensate an employee:
Who has suffered an accident arising out of and in the course of his employment, resulting into (i) death, (ii) permanent total disablement, (iii) permanent partial disablement, or (iv) temporary disablement whether total or partial, or
2. Who has contracted an occupational disease.
HOWEVER THE EMPLOYER SHALL NOT BE LIABLE
1. In respect of any injury which does not result in the total or partial disablement of the workmen for a period exceeding three days;
2. In respect of any injury not resulting in death, caused by an accident which is directly attributable to-
i) the workmen having been at the time thereof under the influence or drugs, or
ii) the willful disobedience of the workman to an order expressly given, or to a rule expressly framed, for the purpose of securing the safety of workmen, or
iii) the willful removal or disregard by the workmen of any safeguard or other device which he knew to have been provided for the purpose of securing the safety of workmen.
The burden of proving intentional disobedience on the part of the employee shall lie upon the employer.
iv) when the employee has contacted a disease which is not directly attributable to a specific injury caused by the accident or to the occupation; or
v)when the employee has filed a suit for damages against the employer or any other person, in a Civil Court
Regards,
HC Nagar
From India, New Delhi
Employer's Liability For Compensation
1. The employer of any establishment covered under this Act, is required to compensate an employee:
Who has suffered an accident arising out of and in the course of his employment, resulting into (i) death, (ii) permanent total disablement, (iii) permanent partial disablement, or (iv) temporary disablement whether total or partial, or
2. Who has contracted an occupational disease.
HOWEVER THE EMPLOYER SHALL NOT BE LIABLE
1. In respect of any injury which does not result in the total or partial disablement of the workmen for a period exceeding three days;
2. In respect of any injury not resulting in death, caused by an accident which is directly attributable to-
i) the workmen having been at the time thereof under the influence or drugs, or
ii) the willful disobedience of the workman to an order expressly given, or to a rule expressly framed, for the purpose of securing the safety of workmen, or
iii) the willful removal or disregard by the workmen of any safeguard or other device which he knew to have been provided for the purpose of securing the safety of workmen.
The burden of proving intentional disobedience on the part of the employee shall lie upon the employer.
iv) when the employee has contacted a disease which is not directly attributable to a specific injury caused by the accident or to the occupation; or
v)when the employee has filed a suit for damages against the employer or any other person, in a Civil Court
Regards,
HC Nagar
From India, New Delhi
Dear Tanvi,
I worked on your question & after discussing with legal personnels I came to know that when a person "starts from his home & leaves company for his home" , this time period is called "during the course of employment" as per ESI act. And that person you are talking about is entitle to get all compensations as per ESI act.(Kindly ignore my first answer as practicaly i never faced this kind of cases.)
Regards,
Inderjeet Singh"Born to lead"
From India, Rajsamand
I worked on your question & after discussing with legal personnels I came to know that when a person "starts from his home & leaves company for his home" , this time period is called "during the course of employment" as per ESI act. And that person you are talking about is entitle to get all compensations as per ESI act.(Kindly ignore my first answer as practicaly i never faced this kind of cases.)
Regards,
Inderjeet Singh"Born to lead"
From India, Rajsamand
Dear sir
There was a provision of responsibility of employer to compensate for if a worker meets with an accident while coming or going from factory by legitimate route to & from his residence.But lots of misuse was there and a supreme court judgement came in which "to & Fro " was removed as a basis of compensation in Fys act.
you may search in S C judgements.
E R Rao
From India, Calcutta
There was a provision of responsibility of employer to compensate for if a worker meets with an accident while coming or going from factory by legitimate route to & from his residence.But lots of misuse was there and a supreme court judgement came in which "to & Fro " was removed as a basis of compensation in Fys act.
you may search in S C judgements.
E R Rao
From India, Calcutta
I feel very bad,Get well soon,God Bless u.
As incident had happened when he is going to office.Every company providing Insurance facility to their employee for the accident.All that facilities are depend on the company criteria but insurance facility is the compulsion one.what u need to do is,approach to HR department.
From India, Mumbai
As incident had happened when he is going to office.Every company providing Insurance facility to their employee for the accident.All that facilities are depend on the company criteria but insurance facility is the compulsion one.what u need to do is,approach to HR department.
From India, Mumbai
Dear friends, Please give right suggestion for the persons who need your help. If you are not confident on what you are writing pls do not comment. This will lead to lot of confusion for the person who is already in pain. It the Establishment in which the Employee injured/deceased working is covered under PF: when a person meets with accident on the way to work or vice versa it is considered as death while in service and the Employee's dependents are eligible for Insurance under Form 5 IF. Similarly, if the Establishment is covered under ESI, the same applies. Kindly get the right information from the concerned Dept and avail the right benefits.
From India, Bangalore
From India, Bangalore
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 studies on R & S.doc
Construction Accident.zip
Circular Dated 28-10-2016 for settlement of PF Death Case Claims within 7 days.pdf