No Tags Found!


essykkr
87

The author of the thread has clearly mentioned that they are into Manufacturing Industry meaning thereby they are covered by the definition of Factories Act and will fall under Schedule II clause (ii) and also would like to produce the same a below-
The following persons are employees within the meaning of section 2(i)(dd)] and subject to the provisions of that section, that is to say, any person who is—
(ii) employed, in any premises wherein or within the precincts whereof a manufacturing process as defined in clause (k) of section 2 of the Factories Act, 1948 (63 of 1948), is being carried on, or in any kind of work whatsoever incidental to or connected with any such manufacturing process or with the article made 8[whether or not employment in any such work is within such premises or precincts], and steam, water or other mechanical power or electrical power is used; or
Now please carefully read both the clauses it is clear the definition is ANY PERSON WHO IS EMPLOYED. the word Employed has been used in both the clauses, which mean any person employed. Are managers/suprevisors etc are not employed.
Earlier the definition used to be "Workman" means under 2(n) (old Act).
So my point is as far as employment category covered under Schedule II, in such categories, all employees are covered irrespective of their designation .


umakanthan53
6018

Dear friends,

I very much appreciate the valuable and logical inputs offered by all the responding members though some points seem unacceptable to me. The question is whether the Employees Compensation Act,1923 is applicable to those employees including managerial cadre personnel not covered by the ESI Act in the event of employment accidents.In this regard, I am in complete agreement with Varghese Mathew.If we analyse the preamble of the E.C Act with reference to the Statement of Objects and Reasons, "the Act has its roots in charity, sympathy and the advancement of socialistic ideas" as observed by the Hon'ble High Court of Allahabad in Works Manager, Carriage & Wagon Shop,EIR v. Mahabir ( AIR 1954 All 132 ).How ever, the Act limits its application to the employees based on their vulnerability or risk of exposure to employment accidents in general. Hence the definition of 'employee' with reference to the list enumerated in the Schedule II.We have to bear in mind that the list furnished in the Schedule is not illustrative BUT exhaustive.

From India, Salem
varghesemathew
912

If the 'manager' is in the manufacturing sector coming under the Factories Act ,he is an employee under Employees Compensation Act ( if he is not covered under ESI Act) and is eligible for compensation for employment injury.

9961266966

From India, Thiruvananthapuram
jitendra Pamnani
2

Those who are not covered under ESI Act will not be automatically covered under EC Act. They will be covered under EC Act only if they falls under the definition of ' employee ' under the EC Act 1923. One more thing for calculating compensation maximum wages will be Rs. 8000-.
J.K. Pamnani

From India, New Delhi
jitendra Pamnani
2

They are eligible for compensation even company is giving them medical in their salary breakups.
From India, New Delhi
korgaonkar k a
2556

Dear Tushar ji,
I hope, you will correct yourself after reading the comments of senior learned members.
The liability under the EC Act can not be met by mediclaim policy or personal accidental policy. Only EC policy will come to your rescue in liability under EC Act as mentioned by Shrikant Prabhudesai.

From India, Mumbai
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.






Contact Us Privacy Policy Disclaimer Terms Of Service

All rights reserved @ 2024 CiteHR ®

All Copyright And Trademarks in Posts Held By Respective Owners.