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
Acknowledge(0)
Amend(0)
1From Kuwait, Kuwait
Acknowledge(0)Amend(0)
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
Acknowledge(0)Amend(0)
From India, Madras
Acknowledge(0)Amend(0)
Dear Sir, The new joinee entered the work location for induction and met with unnatural accident . The organisation covered under ESIC Act. Regards Mohammed Azeez
From Kuwait, Kuwait
Acknowledge(0)Amend(0)
From Kuwait, Kuwait
Acknowledge(0)Amend(0)
Dear Mr. 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 organization 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 organization, you would not have either recovered his ESI contribution.
(ii) You would not have also paid the 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 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 employer after 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 Workmen's 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 Workmen's Compensation Act will not apply. The matter was taken up to 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 the 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 result in death before the commencement of the first benefit period, Rule 58(2)(b)(ii) provides the method of computation of dependent benefits.
When considered in the background of statutory provisions noted above, the payment or non-payment of contributions and action or non-action prior to or subsequent to the date of the 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
Acknowledge(0)Amend(0)
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 organization 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 organization, you would not have either recovered his ESI contribution.
(ii) You would not have also paid the 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 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 employer after 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 Workmen's 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 Workmen's Compensation Act will not apply. The matter was taken up to 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 the 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 result in death before the commencement of the first benefit period, Rule 58(2)(b)(ii) provides the method of computation of dependent benefits.
When considered in the background of statutory provisions noted above, the payment or non-payment of contributions and action or non-action prior to or subsequent to the date of the 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
Acknowledge(0)Amend(0)
Dear Harikrishnan,
I have been employed in the construction industry for a year at the corporate office, covered under ESIC. The organization has a Workshop Division approximately 20-25 KM away from the corporate office, and the salary disbursement and its records are maintained at the corporate office. In a few days, there was a routine inspection from an Inspector at the workshop division, and accordingly, we have produced the relevant documents for inspection. The Inspector submitted a report mentioning the need to avail a new subcode for the workshop division.
In this regard, I request your input on this matter.
Please note: We have only 6 employees whose salaries fall under the ambit of the ESIC Act. Thank you.
With Regards,
Mohammed Azeez
HR Manager
From Kuwait, Kuwait
Acknowledge(0)Amend(0)
I have been employed in the construction industry for a year at the corporate office, covered under ESIC. The organization has a Workshop Division approximately 20-25 KM away from the corporate office, and the salary disbursement and its records are maintained at the corporate office. In a few days, there was a routine inspection from an Inspector at the workshop division, and accordingly, we have produced the relevant documents for inspection. The Inspector submitted a report mentioning the need to avail a new subcode for the workshop division.
In this regard, I request your input on this matter.
Please note: We have only 6 employees whose salaries fall under the ambit of the ESIC Act. Thank you.
With Regards,
Mohammed Azeez
HR Manager
From Kuwait, Kuwait
Acknowledge(0)Amend(0)
Dear Mr. Mohammed Azeez,
As instructed by the Inspector, you have to obtain a sub-code for the workshop division, especially if you have employees whose salaries fall within the limit prescribed under the ESI Act. Given that the workshop is located 20-25 kilometers from the corporate office, the Inspector has requested you to acquire a new sub-code.
Please take the necessary steps to comply with this directive.
Thank you.
From India, Madras
Acknowledge(0)Amend(0)
As instructed by the Inspector, you have to obtain a sub-code for the workshop division, especially if you have employees whose salaries fall within the limit prescribed under the ESI Act. Given that the workshop is located 20-25 kilometers from the corporate office, the Inspector has requested you to acquire a new sub-code.
Please take the necessary steps to comply with this directive.
Thank you.
From India, Madras
Acknowledge(0)Amend(0)Looking for something specific? - Join & Be Part Of Our Community and get connected with the right people who can help. Our AI-powered platform provides real-time fact-checking, peer-reviewed insights, and a vast historical knowledge base to support your search.