Hi,
Death is taken place and due to suffocation. Immediately after the death of employee, the Police will file FIR and Dir. of Factories or Labour Dept. has to receive a copy of death report within 24 hours. From where this enquiry committee can give contrary report? After death, any report may not have much meaning as far as Compensation is concerned.
From India, Bangalore
42Death is taken place and due to suffocation. Immediately after the death of employee, the Police will file FIR and Dir. of Factories or Labour Dept. has to receive a copy of death report within 24 hours. From where this enquiry committee can give contrary report? After death, any report may not have much meaning as far as Compensation is concerned.
From India, Bangalore
Very very pertinent questions !!! I think there is nothing more to be said on this !!!!
From India, Delhi
From India, Delhi
Dear friend,
In many more than one case the death or injury sustained "in the course employment" was decided awarding suitable compensation by various courts. The attached few case law can be of some help to this issue.
kumar.s.
From India, Bangalore
In many more than one case the death or injury sustained "in the course employment" was decided awarding suitable compensation by various courts. The attached few case law can be of some help to this issue.
kumar.s.
From India, Bangalore
Even assuming that the employee has previous history of ailment like heart problem or asthma, it would not exonerate the employer from his liability to pay compensation for death since there is nexus between his death and his employment because of the fact that the duty of carrying cement bags or falling of cement bags etc. would have aggravated his condition leading to his death.Even if there is ventilation, it would not nullify the nexus between death and the nature of his work.
B.Saikumar
Mumbai
From India, Mumbai
B.Saikumar
Mumbai
From India, Mumbai
One thing that is envisaged under RC Act is that any employee who meets with accident during the course of and arising out of his employment shall be entitled to compensation commensurate with loss of his earning capacity, including death based on the formula given undet the Act. The internally constituted committee's report had no bearing thereon. The police and/or medical reports supercedes all such reports.
Secondly, unethical dealing of such liability shall result not only in elongated litigation but also money and manhour, leave alone indirect loss of employee.morale & productivity. Ultimately the law enforcement agencies and judiciary sympathise with employee. Hence, it would be desirable to comply with EC Act and pay compensation. Anyway the company may have insurance policy which will support the employer.
Regards
From India, Mumbai
Secondly, unethical dealing of such liability shall result not only in elongated litigation but also money and manhour, leave alone indirect loss of employee.morale & productivity. Ultimately the law enforcement agencies and judiciary sympathise with employee. Hence, it would be desirable to comply with EC Act and pay compensation. Anyway the company may have insurance policy which will support the employer.
Regards
From India, Mumbai
Dear Mrityunjay,
I think the the certification of the company under the ISO and the contrary report of the so-called committee giving a clean-chit to the owner of the warehouse have caused your present confusion about the admissibility of the claim for compensation by the dependents of the deceased employee.The employee died of suffocation while on duty and the cause of death mentioned in the post mortem report also confirms this.The parameters for exempting the employer from liability mentioned in the proviso to ss(1) of section 3 of the Employees Compensation Act, 1923 are not applicable to fatal accident.Therefore the report of the committee may not be of any help to the employer in the matter of payment of compensation other than for mitigating his criminal liability for causing death by negligence.
From India, Salem
I think the the certification of the company under the ISO and the contrary report of the so-called committee giving a clean-chit to the owner of the warehouse have caused your present confusion about the admissibility of the claim for compensation by the dependents of the deceased employee.The employee died of suffocation while on duty and the cause of death mentioned in the post mortem report also confirms this.The parameters for exempting the employer from liability mentioned in the proviso to ss(1) of section 3 of the Employees Compensation Act, 1923 are not applicable to fatal accident.Therefore the report of the committee may not be of any help to the employer in the matter of payment of compensation other than for mitigating his criminal liability for causing death by negligence.
From India, Salem
I do not understand why this should be a question at all. Very clear case.Worker is eligible for compensation. Rightly said by Mr.Verghese M. and others.Interestng discussion
From India, Coimbatore
From India, Coimbatore
Mr. Umakanthan.M
Additional Commissioner of Labour (RTD)
According to you;
The parameters for exempting the employer from liability mentioned in the proviso to ss(1) of section 3 of the Employees Compensation Act, 1923 are not applicable to fatal accident.
My question to you with due respect is
How do you say Fatal Accident is not covered in the Act when it is not expressed or implied in the Act? Can you enlighten on this issue since you served / were an Authority under the Act.
From India, Bangalore
Additional Commissioner of Labour (RTD)
According to you;
The parameters for exempting the employer from liability mentioned in the proviso to ss(1) of section 3 of the Employees Compensation Act, 1923 are not applicable to fatal accident.
My question to you with due respect is
How do you say Fatal Accident is not covered in the Act when it is not expressed or implied in the Act? Can you enlighten on this issue since you served / were an Authority under the Act.
From India, Bangalore
DEAR Mr.VIVIAN CHANDRASEKAR,
Thank u for your query.The proviso to ss(1) of S3 of the E.C Act,1923 enumerates the cases in which the employer is NOT liable to pay compensation in clauses (a) and (b). Clause (a) exempts the employer from liability in respect of any injury not resulting in TOTAL or PARTIAL DISABLEMENT for a period EXCEEDING 3 DAYS; Cl (b) exempts the employer from liability for compensation in respect of any other type of injury due to an accident caused because of three reasons directly attributable to the concerned workman when its resultant effect is not death or permanent total disablement.This was what I meant to say in my previous post.I never expected that it would mean the way you mentioned.Hope my reply will satisfy you!
With regards,
From India, Salem
Thank u for your query.The proviso to ss(1) of S3 of the E.C Act,1923 enumerates the cases in which the employer is NOT liable to pay compensation in clauses (a) and (b). Clause (a) exempts the employer from liability in respect of any injury not resulting in TOTAL or PARTIAL DISABLEMENT for a period EXCEEDING 3 DAYS; Cl (b) exempts the employer from liability for compensation in respect of any other type of injury due to an accident caused because of three reasons directly attributable to the concerned workman when its resultant effect is not death or permanent total disablement.This was what I meant to say in my previous post.I never expected that it would mean the way you mentioned.Hope my reply will satisfy you!
With regards,
From India, Salem
Find answers from people who have previously dealt with business and work issues similar to yours - Please Register and Log In to CiteHR and post your query.
Average annual hours actually worked per worker.rar
NOTIFICATION_PF _INTERNATIONAL WORKER.pdf