Skip to main content

Compensate injured woman despite no contribution from employer: Kerala HC

An employee who suffers injuries at work should be compensated by Employees' State Insurance Corporation (ESIC) even if the employer fails to pay the mandatory contribution to the corporation, the Kerala high court has held.

If the employer fails to pay the contribution, the employee cannot be considered uninsured, the court ruled.

Justice S S Satheesachandran made the ruling while considering an appeal filed by ESIC challenging an order by the commissioner for workmen's compensation to pay Rs 59,671 to Kalyani, a worker with Maria Tiles of Paliakara in Thrissur for the injuries she suffered.

It admitted in court that Maria Tiles was a covered establishment under the Employee State Insurance Act but argued that the employee was not registered nor any contribution paid in respect of her until the accident took place on December 30, 1999. Her employer remitted contribution for her for the month of December 1999 only on May 23, 2001. Thus she was not an insured employee, the corporation argued.

After considering the question of insurance coverage, an Employees' Insurance court had given the finding that the employee was insured and asked the corporation to refund the compensation paid by the employer before the commissioner. The corporation filed an appeal following this.

Referring to section 2(14) of the act, the high court held that the definition includes those workers in respect of whom contributions are or were payable under the act. Payment or nonpayment of contributions and action or non-action prior to or subsequent to the date of accident is inconsequential, the court ruled.

Even when no application was filed by the employer to register a worker or no contribution was paid, he has to be treated as an insured person under the act, the court held.

Article referred: http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/city/kochi/Compensate-injured-woman-despite-no-contribution-from-employer-Kerala-HC/articleshow/29078737.cms

Comments

Most viewed this month

Deposit Of Minimum 20% Fine/Compensation U/s 148 NI Act Mandatory

In OP(Crl.).No.348 OF 2019, T.K.SAJEEVAN vs FRANCIS T.CHACKO, the appeal was filed against the order of the lower court to deposit 25% of the fine before filling of appeal. The appellant argued that the deposit introduced through the Section 148 of the NI Act after amendment was directory in nature as it used the term 'may' while mentioning the issue of deposit. The Kerala High Court however disagreeing held that in view of the object of the Legislature while incorporating Section 148 into N.I. Act, the word 'may' will have to be read as 'shall'. The imposition of payment contemplated under Section 148 N.I. Act cannot be restricted to some prosecutions and evaded in other prosecutions. Since the amount directed to be deposited being compensation, undoubtedly, it is liable to be ordered to be deposited irrespective of the nature of the prosecution. Therefore, the word 'may' can only be taken to have the colour and meaning of 'shall' and there

NCLT - Mere admission of receipt of money does not qualify as a financial debt

Cause Title : Meghna Devang Juthani Vs Ambe Securities Private Limited, National Company Law Tribunal, Mumbai, CP (IB) No. 974/MB-VI/2020 Date of Judgment/Order : 18.12.2023 Corum : Hon’ble Shri K. R. Saji Kumar, Member (Judicial) Hon’ble Shri Sanjiv Dutt, Member (Technical) Citied:  Carnoustie Management India Pvt. Ltd. Vs. CBS International Projects Private Limited, NCLT Swiss Ribbons Pvt. Ltd. & Anr vs. Union of India & Ors. (2019) Sanjay Kewalramani vs Sunil Parmanand Kewalramani & Ors. (2018) Pawan Kumar vs. Utsav Securities Pvt Ltd 2021 Background Application was filed under section 7 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 alleging loan of Rs, 1.70 cr is due. The Applicate identified herself as the widow and heir of the lender but could not produce any documents proving financial contract between her Late husband and the CD but claimed that the CD has accepted that money was received from her husband. The applicant subsequently filed rejoinder claiming the debt t

Jurisdiction of consumer forum is not ousted even if the other party has filed suit on the same matter in Civil Court

In Yashwant Rama Jadhav v. Shaukat Hussain Shaikh, First Appeal No. 1229 of 2017, decided on 18.11.2017,  the grievance of the petitioner before the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission was that appellants/complainants had entered into agreements with the respondents for purchase of residential flats, which the respondents were to construct and despite paying the substantial amount to the respondents, the construction of the flats had not been completed. The State Commission dismissed the complaints and ruled in favor of respondents against which the appellants approached the National Commission. The NCDRC held that Section ‘3’ of the Consumer Protection Act, to the extent it is relevant provides that the provisions of the Act shall be in addition and not in derogation of the provisions of any other law for the time being in force. Thus the remedy available under the Consumer Protection Act is an additional remedy, which Parliament has made available to a consumer. Even