I have gone through the case.
The case does not repudiate the validity of the PRINCIPLE OF NOTIONAL EXTENSION. Although in that particular case, the claim was rejected.
There are several other cases in which it has been allowed; for example:
Rajanna vs Union Of India on 19 April 1995
Rajanna vs Union Of India on 19 April 1995
wherein the following cases were also cited:
Cites 4 docs
The Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923
J. K. Synthetics Ltd vs J. K. Synthetics Mazdoor Union on 9 September 1971
Saurashtra Salt Manufacturing ... vs Bai Valu Raja And Ors. on 28 April 1958
Mackinnon Mackenzie & Co. Pvt. Ltd vs Ibrahim Mahommed Issak on 14 August 1969
Cited by 4 docs
Smt. Vandana vs Government Of Nct Of Delhi Through ... on 14 January 2008
Dipender Singh (1639/W) vs Government Of Nct Of Delhi on 15 October 2008
General Manager, Prakasham ... vs Pavuralla Santhakumari And Ors. on 24 September 2003
The Management Of Pannimedu ... vs Chandra on 20 April 1998
Even in the instant case cited, the Theory of Notional Extension has not been denounced but not allowed in this particular case.
Generally, Courts have UNEQUIVOCALLY supported the principle of Notional Extension of employment wherever the Transport facility has been provided by the employer.
Only in cases of personal transport or alternate arrangement, there has been ambiguity.
However, the fact stands that ALL good companies have adopted the Principle of Notional Extension; wherein generally 1 hour before duty hours and 1 hour after duty hours; which is normally reckoned as the period of arriving at the workplace; has been covered.
The philosophy of such benevolent and employee-friendly companies has been that had it not been for the purpose of duty, the employee would not have been at the place of employment or met with an accident.
One needs to honor such time-tested traditions without going in for Court Cases for each and every matter. For example; nowhere does the Law say that one has to GIVE PROMOTIONS to its employees. Does it mean that the Law BARS promotions? Or, employers NEED NOT give promotions to employees as there is no law that forces employers to give promotions or increments to deserving employees?
It's the choice of the company, whether it chooses to be a good company; and HR has an important role to play in it by having an attitude of employee welfare and motivation; rather than getting praise and personal rewards by cutting such costs.
Warm regards.
From India, Delhi
Acknowledge(0)
Amend(0)
1497The case does not repudiate the validity of the PRINCIPLE OF NOTIONAL EXTENSION. Although in that particular case, the claim was rejected.
There are several other cases in which it has been allowed; for example:
Rajanna vs Union Of India on 19 April 1995
Rajanna vs Union Of India on 19 April 1995
wherein the following cases were also cited:
Cites 4 docs
The Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923
J. K. Synthetics Ltd vs J. K. Synthetics Mazdoor Union on 9 September 1971
Saurashtra Salt Manufacturing ... vs Bai Valu Raja And Ors. on 28 April 1958
Mackinnon Mackenzie & Co. Pvt. Ltd vs Ibrahim Mahommed Issak on 14 August 1969
Cited by 4 docs
Smt. Vandana vs Government Of Nct Of Delhi Through ... on 14 January 2008
Dipender Singh (1639/W) vs Government Of Nct Of Delhi on 15 October 2008
General Manager, Prakasham ... vs Pavuralla Santhakumari And Ors. on 24 September 2003
The Management Of Pannimedu ... vs Chandra on 20 April 1998
Even in the instant case cited, the Theory of Notional Extension has not been denounced but not allowed in this particular case.
Generally, Courts have UNEQUIVOCALLY supported the principle of Notional Extension of employment wherever the Transport facility has been provided by the employer.
Only in cases of personal transport or alternate arrangement, there has been ambiguity.
However, the fact stands that ALL good companies have adopted the Principle of Notional Extension; wherein generally 1 hour before duty hours and 1 hour after duty hours; which is normally reckoned as the period of arriving at the workplace; has been covered.
The philosophy of such benevolent and employee-friendly companies has been that had it not been for the purpose of duty, the employee would not have been at the place of employment or met with an accident.
One needs to honor such time-tested traditions without going in for Court Cases for each and every matter. For example; nowhere does the Law say that one has to GIVE PROMOTIONS to its employees. Does it mean that the Law BARS promotions? Or, employers NEED NOT give promotions to employees as there is no law that forces employers to give promotions or increments to deserving employees?
It's the choice of the company, whether it chooses to be a good company; and HR has an important role to play in it by having an attitude of employee welfare and motivation; rather than getting praise and personal rewards by cutting such costs.
Warm regards.
From India, Delhi
Acknowledge(0)Amend(0)
Dear All,
I have some queries related to the accident that occurred in the workplace. In the case where an individual has not reported any accident to the Inspector of Factories, even if it occurred 5-6 months ago (ESI not covered), what are all the consequences that follow? Is there a penalty for not reporting, and what are the processes to follow?
Thank you.
From India, Bangalore
Acknowledge(0)Amend(0)
I have some queries related to the accident that occurred in the workplace. In the case where an individual has not reported any accident to the Inspector of Factories, even if it occurred 5-6 months ago (ESI not covered), what are all the consequences that follow? Is there a penalty for not reporting, and what are the processes to follow?
Thank you.
From India, Bangalore
Acknowledge(0)Amend(0)
Is the employee covered under ESI?
Please refer to Section 51-E of the ESI Act regarding accidents occurring while commuting to and from the place of work. An accident happening to an employee while traveling from their residence to the workplace for duty or vice versa, from the workplace to their residence after completing their duty, shall be considered to have occurred out of and during employment if a connection between the circumstances, time, place of the accident, and employment is established.
From India
Acknowledge(0)Amend(0)
Please refer to Section 51-E of the ESI Act regarding accidents occurring while commuting to and from the place of work. An accident happening to an employee while traveling from their residence to the workplace for duty or vice versa, from the workplace to their residence after completing their duty, shall be considered to have occurred out of and during employment if a connection between the circumstances, time, place of the accident, and employment is established.
From India
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.