Hello everyone,
Can anyone tell me the solution for my query.
My company comes under ESI and PF benefit. Our office maid took maternity leave for 3 months after delivery but during her leave she send he mother in her place instead. Company paid salary to her mother for the next 3 months on the name of the maid and deducted ESI according to that. But now when the maid asked the ESI hospital to pay her the maternity benefit they refused as in records her ESI has been deducted for 3 months. What should the company should do for her so that she can get her ESI benefit of the 3months. The company cannot give her the pay as the company has already paid the salary to her mother.
From India, Chandigarh
1Can anyone tell me the solution for my query.
My company comes under ESI and PF benefit. Our office maid took maternity leave for 3 months after delivery but during her leave she send he mother in her place instead. Company paid salary to her mother for the next 3 months on the name of the maid and deducted ESI according to that. But now when the maid asked the ESI hospital to pay her the maternity benefit they refused as in records her ESI has been deducted for 3 months. What should the company should do for her so that she can get her ESI benefit of the 3months. The company cannot give her the pay as the company has already paid the salary to her mother.
From India, Chandigarh
The company has done a blunder by not giving the mother a new appointment at least for three months and then paying her salary deducting ESI. Therefore, the company has to find a solution. The only solution is to pay the maternity benefits to the employee by the company. Since the act of the company is just misrepresentation and falsification, there is no way out but to admit it and pay 3 months salary to the maid or face the consequences for falsification misrepresentation
Madhu.T.K
From India, Kannur
Madhu.T.K
From India, Kannur
Sir(s),
1. This is a serious case as reported. The company which engaged the mother of insured woman on her name and continued employment for 3 long months, in my opinion, is also responsible for wrong entries in the attendance and wage records. Such actions are liable for prosecution under section 84 of ESI Act, 1948. Perhaps such actions are also punishable under section 416 of Indian Penal Code or under Payment of Wages Act.
2. ESIC has rightly rejected the claim of the insured woman under Rule 56 of the ESI (Central) Rules, 1950. There appears to be no solution to the issue so far as ESI is concerned. If the insured woman will continue to raise the issue before ESIC, there is possibility that they may examine filing of prosecution case against both employee as well as employer for such false claim.
From India, Noida
1. This is a serious case as reported. The company which engaged the mother of insured woman on her name and continued employment for 3 long months, in my opinion, is also responsible for wrong entries in the attendance and wage records. Such actions are liable for prosecution under section 84 of ESI Act, 1948. Perhaps such actions are also punishable under section 416 of Indian Penal Code or under Payment of Wages Act.
2. ESIC has rightly rejected the claim of the insured woman under Rule 56 of the ESI (Central) Rules, 1950. There appears to be no solution to the issue so far as ESI is concerned. If the insured woman will continue to raise the issue before ESIC, there is possibility that they may examine filing of prosecution case against both employee as well as employer for such false claim.
From India, Noida
Dear Harsh Kumar ji, With due respect to you Sir, may I ask you how the Corporation may file prosecution against the employee? According to me there is no fault of employee.
From India, Mumbai
From India, Mumbai
Dear Korgaonkarji,
1. Thanks for raising issue through your remarks as above. In this connection, I may submit that the Maternity Benefit Claim Form No. 19 as laid down under ESI (General) Regulations, 1950 includes a certificate from the claimant of the benefit that she has ceased to work for remuneration during the period of claim. Therefore, once such claim is made with the appropriate branch office of ESIC, in my opinion, furnishing of wrong information and false declaration is complete regardless whether in actual benefit is paid or not.
2. Further, it is to be seen as to how and in what manner the said insured woman or the said establishment will prove before the authorities that the entries made in the said Attendance and Wages records with reference to said insured woman are wrong and erroneous. At present due to online procedure, the payment of contributions, submission of declaration forms etc. are being made online by the employers. I am doubtful, if the employer or the said insured woman will be able to prove their case of wrong/erroneous entries in said records. In addition, the question will also arise whether similar type of error or mistake has been made in respect of returns or payments of contributions etc. in respect of said insured women when generating the records of EPF or under Factories Act etc. as may be applicable in said establishment. In the light of above position, I have written my opinion, about possibilities of prosecution of said insured woman.
3. In this era of RTI and verification of complaint systems in public offices, I am doubtful if any official will agree and will be convinced to the genuineness of the story as narrated by the initiator of this thread.
From India, Noida
1. Thanks for raising issue through your remarks as above. In this connection, I may submit that the Maternity Benefit Claim Form No. 19 as laid down under ESI (General) Regulations, 1950 includes a certificate from the claimant of the benefit that she has ceased to work for remuneration during the period of claim. Therefore, once such claim is made with the appropriate branch office of ESIC, in my opinion, furnishing of wrong information and false declaration is complete regardless whether in actual benefit is paid or not.
2. Further, it is to be seen as to how and in what manner the said insured woman or the said establishment will prove before the authorities that the entries made in the said Attendance and Wages records with reference to said insured woman are wrong and erroneous. At present due to online procedure, the payment of contributions, submission of declaration forms etc. are being made online by the employers. I am doubtful, if the employer or the said insured woman will be able to prove their case of wrong/erroneous entries in said records. In addition, the question will also arise whether similar type of error or mistake has been made in respect of returns or payments of contributions etc. in respect of said insured women when generating the records of EPF or under Factories Act etc. as may be applicable in said establishment. In the light of above position, I have written my opinion, about possibilities of prosecution of said insured woman.
3. In this era of RTI and verification of complaint systems in public offices, I am doubtful if any official will agree and will be convinced to the genuineness of the story as narrated by the initiator of this thread.
From India, Noida
Dear Harsh Kumar ji,
Thanks for your active participation in the discussion.
According to me, the IW proceeded on maternity leave. She claimed maternity leave benefit from ESIC but ESIC refused to pay her on the ground that her employer has paid contribution in her account during the period of her absence from duty on account of maternity. It is a BLUNDER BY THE EMPLOYER. The employee has no fault here.
The employee (IW) has given substitute during her absence. It is a fault of employer not to take the substitute person on roll as leave vacancy. It is a fault of employer not enrolling her (substituted person) as IW. It is a fault of employer to show attendance of and salary earned by substituted person in the account of IW who has proceeded on maternity leave.
The IW is no-where in fault according to me. Even if the employer has obtain the signatures of IW on salary sheet, the employer is in fault. The IW can lead the evidence that she was on leave and substitute person was engaged by the employer.
Therefore I feel, there is no possibility of prosecuting the IW.
From India, Mumbai
Thanks for your active participation in the discussion.
According to me, the IW proceeded on maternity leave. She claimed maternity leave benefit from ESIC but ESIC refused to pay her on the ground that her employer has paid contribution in her account during the period of her absence from duty on account of maternity. It is a BLUNDER BY THE EMPLOYER. The employee has no fault here.
The employee (IW) has given substitute during her absence. It is a fault of employer not to take the substitute person on roll as leave vacancy. It is a fault of employer not enrolling her (substituted person) as IW. It is a fault of employer to show attendance of and salary earned by substituted person in the account of IW who has proceeded on maternity leave.
The IW is no-where in fault according to me. Even if the employer has obtain the signatures of IW on salary sheet, the employer is in fault. The IW can lead the evidence that she was on leave and substitute person was engaged by the employer.
Therefore I feel, there is no possibility of prosecuting the IW.
From India, Mumbai
Dear Korgaonkarji, I feel that the views as expressed by you as above are very relevant and proper in the situation and I fully agree with the same.
From India, Noida
From India, Noida
Dear Madhu ji,
I am in the shoes of IW. I have proceeded on Maternity leave. Being I am IW it is my right to get maternity leave benefit under the ESI. If my employer did a blunder, why should I suffer or deprived from my legitimate right?
Whether the Corporation takes action against my employer or not, it is not my concern. My concern is, I should be paid the maternity leave and other benefits as admissible under the law. Hope I am right in this.
From India, Mumbai
I am in the shoes of IW. I have proceeded on Maternity leave. Being I am IW it is my right to get maternity leave benefit under the ESI. If my employer did a blunder, why should I suffer or deprived from my legitimate right?
Whether the Corporation takes action against my employer or not, it is not my concern. My concern is, I should be paid the maternity leave and other benefits as admissible under the law. Hope I am right in this.
From India, Mumbai
As per ESI records she has already collected the wages from the employer. Hence the Corporation is under no liability to pay benefits. As already pointed out by me in the 1st reply to the thread, since the employee is innocent and the employer is wrong, the employer should pay 3 months salary to her and close it. I know that worker need not get affected by the wrong act of employer and that was why I categorically said that the company should take ownership and pay the amount. ESIC can only go by whatever is available in the records. When the records (of the employer himself) say that she was paid salary by him, how can the Corporation pay it.
Madhu.T.K
From India, Kannur
Madhu.T.K
From India, Kannur
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.
Introduction Of Self-Declaratio n Form For Insured Woman Relating To Maternity Benefit Under ESI .pdf