Thank you Nair,
Transportation provided by the employer, is a different scenario, and infact this was one of the reasons why the companies decided to provide their own transportation facilities to the employees initially... since especially from 2004 it developed grossly with the development of transnational, international and multinational companies, observing that it helped in many different ways like time management and production utility, safety and security due to many reasons like attendance maintenance, work shifts activities, and also the major number of employees...and so on..............
From India, Bangalore
201Transportation provided by the employer, is a different scenario, and infact this was one of the reasons why the companies decided to provide their own transportation facilities to the employees initially... since especially from 2004 it developed grossly with the development of transnational, international and multinational companies, observing that it helped in many different ways like time management and production utility, safety and security due to many reasons like attendance maintenance, work shifts activities, and also the major number of employees...and so on..............
From India, Bangalore
Dear all
Now the question comes in my mind that in Mumbai thre are millions of people everyday traveling to and pro daily towards their work station. and wherein many of the accidents take place like Train/ Bus accident, Bomb spot, etc. Now in this case also does employer bond to give the compensation.
Raj
From India
Now the question comes in my mind that in Mumbai thre are millions of people everyday traveling to and pro daily towards their work station. and wherein many of the accidents take place like Train/ Bus accident, Bomb spot, etc. Now in this case also does employer bond to give the compensation.
Raj
From India
Well, That's a good question, Employee can claim the compensation if he proves that it happened "beyond his control", that means employee had no idea of and also had no chances of escape from an accident, and it was totally out of employee's fault and knowledge; in case of individual accidents.
But in case of public accidents, employer is not liable, it fall under a different scenario, as you mention railways, the railway authority is liable, bomb blasts the government is responsible. employer exclusively is not liable to pay compensation. But employee may claim his insurance.......... (if the HR Policy supports to pay the compensation in generosity then the employee may get...)
If it is clear to you then answer this, me being a worker, I was supposed to leave my workplace at 5pm but you, my employer insist me to stay, officially, and I leave at 7pm and railway accident takes place, r u liable to me?? because you hold me for more than usual time of work, and I was going home directly to my home from workplace.... ?? think.....
From India, Bangalore
But in case of public accidents, employer is not liable, it fall under a different scenario, as you mention railways, the railway authority is liable, bomb blasts the government is responsible. employer exclusively is not liable to pay compensation. But employee may claim his insurance.......... (if the HR Policy supports to pay the compensation in generosity then the employee may get...)
If it is clear to you then answer this, me being a worker, I was supposed to leave my workplace at 5pm but you, my employer insist me to stay, officially, and I leave at 7pm and railway accident takes place, r u liable to me?? because you hold me for more than usual time of work, and I was going home directly to my home from workplace.... ?? think.....
From India, Bangalore
it completely based on whether employee is under ESI coverage or not. If he os covered there no need of employer to pay the compensation. If not it works as per workmen compensation act
From India, Warangal
From India, Warangal
Dear BSSV & others, I am of the opinion of that although there is notional extension regarding 'arising during the course of duty', yet it fails the test of arising out of duty. Where the employee was at the place of accident, not for discharging the duties but in his personal capacity, there cannot be any liability on the employer.
Regards
KK
From India, Bhopal
Regards
KK
From India, Bhopal
Dear Raj
Accidents cannot be classified as accidents "beyond control' and accidents "within control". An event is called an accident only when it happens all of a sudden and without the knowlege and beyond the power of the victim.An event to be an accident, it shall be unpredictable.Therefore an accident will always be "beyond the control" of the victim. Therefore to decide the entitlement of the employee within the four corners of the Employee Compensation Act, what is required to be seen is whether the accident arose out of and in the course of employment even by the application of the principle of notional extension and whether the employee has contributed to the accident i.e negligent or whether he could have avoided it, had been careful.Even if the employer detained him beyond his scheduled working hours and thereafter he met with an accident on his way home, his entitlememnt to compensation will be still disputable, assuming that the employer offered him his transposrt to drop him at home or which he normally takes daily but he refused and chose to go on his own by a local train which met with an accident.Thus there will be innumerable intervening factors that can affect the employee's rights to compensation. Each case need to be judged on it' merits and tehre cannot be one general answer since the Act does not provide a general solution.
B.Saikumar
HR & labour Law Advisor
Mumbai
From India, Mumbai
Accidents cannot be classified as accidents "beyond control' and accidents "within control". An event is called an accident only when it happens all of a sudden and without the knowlege and beyond the power of the victim.An event to be an accident, it shall be unpredictable.Therefore an accident will always be "beyond the control" of the victim. Therefore to decide the entitlement of the employee within the four corners of the Employee Compensation Act, what is required to be seen is whether the accident arose out of and in the course of employment even by the application of the principle of notional extension and whether the employee has contributed to the accident i.e negligent or whether he could have avoided it, had been careful.Even if the employer detained him beyond his scheduled working hours and thereafter he met with an accident on his way home, his entitlememnt to compensation will be still disputable, assuming that the employer offered him his transposrt to drop him at home or which he normally takes daily but he refused and chose to go on his own by a local train which met with an accident.Thus there will be innumerable intervening factors that can affect the employee's rights to compensation. Each case need to be judged on it' merits and tehre cannot be one general answer since the Act does not provide a general solution.
B.Saikumar
HR & labour Law Advisor
Mumbai
From India, Mumbai
Yeah, we have already discussed that, you may refer the previous discussions (also illustrated)......
From India, Bangalore
From India, Bangalore
Dear Saikumar,
beyond the control , doesn't mean you could have had control on the event, it implies that you must prove it an accident without your contribution to it. (Contributory negligence, we call it in legal terms...) it's discussed already infact in layman language...
And yeah, each case differ from its facts and circumstances, has to be dealt accordingly...... factual and legal interpretations differ as you have clearly said that the Act does not provide the exact solutions........
Thank you
From India, Bangalore
beyond the control , doesn't mean you could have had control on the event, it implies that you must prove it an accident without your contribution to it. (Contributory negligence, we call it in legal terms...) it's discussed already infact in layman language...
And yeah, each case differ from its facts and circumstances, has to be dealt accordingly...... factual and legal interpretations differ as you have clearly said that the Act does not provide the exact solutions........
Thank you
From India, Bangalore
it has nothing to do with the ESI coverage. Mr. Saikumar has discussed it well, you may refer that. If the official duty is proved for which the employee was delayed for, he may claim his compensation, when he can claim his compensation then his insurance too........
these kind cases usually depend on the 'established facts and circumstances'...
From India, Bangalore
these kind cases usually depend on the 'established facts and circumstances'...
From India, Bangalore
Dear Raj,
The Workmens Compensation Act clearly holds the employer liable for compensation to the employee who met with the accident if the accident has arisen during the course and arising out of employment. Accordingly, there is notional extension of the premises of the employer en-route to the employee's house from his work place by the direct and usual route. The ESI judgement will also support this contention.
Regards
S.K.Johri
From India, Delhi
The Workmens Compensation Act clearly holds the employer liable for compensation to the employee who met with the accident if the accident has arisen during the course and arising out of employment. Accordingly, there is notional extension of the premises of the employer en-route to the employee's house from his work place by the direct and usual route. The ESI judgement will also support this contention.
Regards
S.K.Johri
From India, Delhi
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.
Construction Accident.zip
Accident report1.doc
IS 3786 ACCIDENT CLASSIFICATION. pdf