Dear Professionals,
I need your guidance on the case below. If an employee has leave balance in his account (suppose 5 CL & 25 EL) but unfortunately falls ill and is diagnosed as a patient of Tuberculosis, undergoing a 9-month-long treatment (complete course of Tuberculosis) under ESIC. Additionally, the doctor has advised him to take complete rest. In this scenario, should the employee be treated as Leave Without Pay (LWP) from duty by mentioning 'on sick leave,' or should we first sanction his 30 days paid leave (25+5), with the remaining duration considered as sick leave allowing the employee to avail extended sickness benefits?
Thank you for your assistance.
From India,
Acknowledge(0)
Amend(0)
I need your guidance on the case below. If an employee has leave balance in his account (suppose 5 CL & 25 EL) but unfortunately falls ill and is diagnosed as a patient of Tuberculosis, undergoing a 9-month-long treatment (complete course of Tuberculosis) under ESIC. Additionally, the doctor has advised him to take complete rest. In this scenario, should the employee be treated as Leave Without Pay (LWP) from duty by mentioning 'on sick leave,' or should we first sanction his 30 days paid leave (25+5), with the remaining duration considered as sick leave allowing the employee to avail extended sickness benefits?
Thank you for your assistance.
From India,
Acknowledge(0)Amend(0)
In this connection, please go through the attached notes on ESI benefits for prolonged sickness like TB.
There is no need to grant him LWP as he is entitled to ESI benefits as noted in the attached notes right from the first day when he reports to the ESI dispensary, provided he qualifies as per ESI rules/benefit period, and the contribution for him was paid as stipulated.
From India, Bangalore
Acknowledge(0)Amend(0)
1273There is no need to grant him LWP as he is entitled to ESI benefits as noted in the attached notes right from the first day when he reports to the ESI dispensary, provided he qualifies as per ESI rules/benefit period, and the contribution for him was paid as stipulated.
From India, Bangalore
Acknowledge(0)Amend(0)
Dear Mr. Kumar S,
Thank you for your guidance, but I have a query. Is an employee eligible for ESB from the first day and will be on leave from duty? In the muster roll, should we exhaust his leave balance by marking EL/CL, or can we mark him normally as on leave? His contribution will be zero (0) in returns. Until then, he will remain on leave.
Thanks & Regards,
Anoop Kumar
From India,
Acknowledge(0)Amend(0)
Thank you for your guidance, but I have a query. Is an employee eligible for ESB from the first day and will be on leave from duty? In the muster roll, should we exhaust his leave balance by marking EL/CL, or can we mark him normally as on leave? His contribution will be zero (0) in returns. Until then, he will remain on leave.
Thanks & Regards,
Anoop Kumar
From India,
Acknowledge(0)Amend(0)
Hi Anoop,
Of course this is a prolonged case of sickness and rare of the rarest. Pray that he should be alright very soon and resume his duties. My view point is this - of course I hope is right -He will have to be marked as Sick Leave. If you wanted to show a different classification for this type of leave, you can mark him as "ESI SL". I don't think you should debit his SL a/c for this spell of ESI leave(rest). This so because his days available at his CL/EL is meant to be utilised for purposes where he is not going to avail ESI benefits. If possible he can be entrusted with any work which he can do it 'from his home" that is going to be his contribution. After all he will have the rest with ESI approved Sick Pay and therefore if he can, he can do this much. I hope I'm not erring on the wrong side.
I request learned members to discuss further if there are other views on the subject and share any personal experiences like this.
In this connection, pl.note the contents of SC's judgment as follows -
The Hon’ble Supreme Court in The Hindustan Times Ltd., New Delhi V/s Their Workmen, decided on 14.12.1962 that availability of sickness benefit under ESI Act is not a bar for awarding sick leave. The Court considered the beneficial nature of the employment law, the ESI Act and opined that ESI coverage had little to do with giving a worker sick leave.
The judgement stated that –
“…It is difficult to see however how the benefit that the workmen will get under this Act can affect the question of sickness leave being provided for the workmen. This Act it has to be noticed does not provide for any leave to the workmen on the ground of sickness…”
Further, the Hon’ble Court stated that, “…It appears to us clear however that in providing for periodical payments to an insured worker in case of sickness (sickness benefit) or for medical treatment or attendance to him or the members of his family, the legislature did not intend to substitute any of these benefits for the workmen’s right to get leave on full pay on the ground of sickness.”
The judgement, finally, after perusal of the leave rules of the concerned establishment came to the conclusion that ESI coverage, although it exists for the benefit of the workman has no relation to sick leaves.
From India, Bangalore
Acknowledge(0)Amend(0)
Of course this is a prolonged case of sickness and rare of the rarest. Pray that he should be alright very soon and resume his duties. My view point is this - of course I hope is right -He will have to be marked as Sick Leave. If you wanted to show a different classification for this type of leave, you can mark him as "ESI SL". I don't think you should debit his SL a/c for this spell of ESI leave(rest). This so because his days available at his CL/EL is meant to be utilised for purposes where he is not going to avail ESI benefits. If possible he can be entrusted with any work which he can do it 'from his home" that is going to be his contribution. After all he will have the rest with ESI approved Sick Pay and therefore if he can, he can do this much. I hope I'm not erring on the wrong side.
I request learned members to discuss further if there are other views on the subject and share any personal experiences like this.
In this connection, pl.note the contents of SC's judgment as follows -
The Hon’ble Supreme Court in The Hindustan Times Ltd., New Delhi V/s Their Workmen, decided on 14.12.1962 that availability of sickness benefit under ESI Act is not a bar for awarding sick leave. The Court considered the beneficial nature of the employment law, the ESI Act and opined that ESI coverage had little to do with giving a worker sick leave.
The judgement stated that –
“…It is difficult to see however how the benefit that the workmen will get under this Act can affect the question of sickness leave being provided for the workmen. This Act it has to be noticed does not provide for any leave to the workmen on the ground of sickness…”
Further, the Hon’ble Court stated that, “…It appears to us clear however that in providing for periodical payments to an insured worker in case of sickness (sickness benefit) or for medical treatment or attendance to him or the members of his family, the legislature did not intend to substitute any of these benefits for the workmen’s right to get leave on full pay on the ground of sickness.”
The judgement, finally, after perusal of the leave rules of the concerned establishment came to the conclusion that ESI coverage, although it exists for the benefit of the workman has no relation to sick leaves.
From India, Bangalore
Acknowledge(0)Amend(0)Engage with peers to discuss and resolve work and business challenges collaboratively - share and document your knowledge. Our AI-powered platform, features real-time fact-checking, peer reviews, and an extensive historical knowledge base. - Join & Be Part Of Our Community.
Bombay Anand Bhavan Restaurant-vs- ESIC SC 2-09-2009.pdf
ESIC Amendment.doc