I have gone through the case.
The case does not repudiates 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
Citedby 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 thee 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 to 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 honour 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 employee as there is no law that forces employers to give promotions or increments to deserving employees??
Its 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
1425The case does not repudiates 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
Citedby 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 thee 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 to 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 honour 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 employee as there is no law that forces employers to give promotions or increments to deserving employees??
Its 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
Dear All
I have some query related to the accident occur in workplace.In case one who has not reported any accident to the inspector of factories , it occurs 5-6 months back?(ESI not covered) What are all the consequences fallows and if there is a penalty for that..and what are the process to fallow?
From India, Bangalore
I have some query related to the accident occur in workplace.In case one who has not reported any accident to the inspector of factories , it occurs 5-6 months back?(ESI not covered) What are all the consequences fallows and if there is a penalty for that..and what are the process to fallow?
From India, Bangalore
Is the employee covered under ESI ??
Please see section 51-E of ESI Act - Accidents happening while commuting to the place of work and vice versa - An accident occuring to an employee while commuting from his residence to the place of employment for duty or from the place of employment to his residence after performing his duty, shall be deemed to have arisen out of and in the course of employment if nexus between circumstances, time and place in and place in which the accident occured and the employment is established
From India
Please see section 51-E of ESI Act - Accidents happening while commuting to the place of work and vice versa - An accident occuring to an employee while commuting from his residence to the place of employment for duty or from the place of employment to his residence after performing his duty, shall be deemed to have arisen out of and in the course of employment if nexus between circumstances, time and place in and place in which the accident occured and the employment is established
From India
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.
Employee Appraisal Form new.doc