What is the liability of the principal employer if an temporary worker (say employed for 7 days to do painting job) dies in the premises?
From India, Mumbai
From India, Mumbai
First of we should find out the reason for death ie., natural or due to accident. If it is accident then the employer is liable for paying the compensation as per the workmen compensation act irrespective of his stature ie., contract / casual / regular / temporary. If the employee is covered under ESIC scheme then the ESI will take care but on humatarian grounds the employer need to pay some amount to the kith and kin of the employee
Regards - kamesh
From India, Hyderabad
186Regards - kamesh
From India, Hyderabad
Dear Hemant
Sub- painter- compensation for injury
In order to be eligible for compensation unde the Employees Compensation Act, the workman shall be employed in any of the jobs specified under the Schedule to the Act and the injury arose out of and in th course of employment. Assuming that the principal employer's establishment is covered under the scheduled employment and the injury is caused in the course of employment, the painter will be construed as workman iresepctive of the number of days he was in the employment of the principle employer since painting was construed as repair within the meaning of item(viii) of schedule II appended to the Act. you can refer to the following case.
1) kamal Devi V.Bengal National Textile Mills Ltd , calcutta 1975 II LLJ 81 (Cal HC).
B.Saikumar
HR & labour Law Consultant
Chipinbiz Consultancy Pvt.ltd
Mumbai
022-28324234
From India, Mumbai
Sub- painter- compensation for injury
In order to be eligible for compensation unde the Employees Compensation Act, the workman shall be employed in any of the jobs specified under the Schedule to the Act and the injury arose out of and in th course of employment. Assuming that the principal employer's establishment is covered under the scheduled employment and the injury is caused in the course of employment, the painter will be construed as workman iresepctive of the number of days he was in the employment of the principle employer since painting was construed as repair within the meaning of item(viii) of schedule II appended to the Act. you can refer to the following case.
1) kamal Devi V.Bengal National Textile Mills Ltd , calcutta 1975 II LLJ 81 (Cal HC).
B.Saikumar
HR & labour Law Consultant
Chipinbiz Consultancy Pvt.ltd
Mumbai
022-28324234
From India, Mumbai
As rightly said by Kamesh, it is necessary to find out reason for the death before awarding any compensation.
Under Section 3(1) it has to be established that there was some causal connection between the death of the workman and his employment. If the workman dies as a natural result of the disease which he was suffering or while suffering from a particular disease he dies of that disease as a result of wear and tear of the employment, no liability would be fixed upon the employer. But if the employment is a contributory cause or has accelerated the death, or if the death was due not only to the disease but also the disease coupled with the employment, then it can be said that the death arose out of the employment and the employer would be liable.
In a case, the workman had been suffering from chest disease and was previously being treated for such disease. The High Court also noted that the job of the deceased was only to switch on or off and, therefore, the doctor had clearly opined that there was no scope for any stress or strain in his duties. In such case, the Supreme Court held that death did not arise out of and in the course of employment. [Jyothi Ademma v. Plant Engineer, Nellore, (2006) 5 SCC 513]
From India, Madras
Under Section 3(1) it has to be established that there was some causal connection between the death of the workman and his employment. If the workman dies as a natural result of the disease which he was suffering or while suffering from a particular disease he dies of that disease as a result of wear and tear of the employment, no liability would be fixed upon the employer. But if the employment is a contributory cause or has accelerated the death, or if the death was due not only to the disease but also the disease coupled with the employment, then it can be said that the death arose out of the employment and the employer would be liable.
In a case, the workman had been suffering from chest disease and was previously being treated for such disease. The High Court also noted that the job of the deceased was only to switch on or off and, therefore, the doctor had clearly opined that there was no scope for any stress or strain in his duties. In such case, the Supreme Court held that death did not arise out of and in the course of employment. [Jyothi Ademma v. Plant Engineer, Nellore, (2006) 5 SCC 513]
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.
EMPLOYEES' COMPENSATION ACT - IMP- PROVISIONS IN TELUGU VERSION.pdf
EMPLOYER COMPENSATION AS PER W.C. ACT.doc