Skip to main content

Employees State Insurance Scheme claim valid in natural death at workplace: HC

In a judgment that will impact lakhs of people registered under the Employees State Insurance Scheme (ESIS), the Bombay high court has ruled that a dependent of an employee who dies a natural death at the workplace is eligible for compensation.

Terming death due to a heart attack at work as "an employment injury'', the high court has directed the Employees State Insurance Corporation (ESIC) to pay a widow monetary benefits that she is eligible to under the scheme within four weeks.

On September 5, 2013, a division bench of Justice V M Kanade and Justice K R Sriram allowed a petition by the widow, Bhagyashree Mahadik, challenging rejection of her claim. Her husband, Bharguram (50), died of a heart attack while at work on March 27, 2012. He was employed with Dhanwantari Engineers as a fitter on a salary and enrolled under ESIS by his employer.

ESIC rejected Bhagyashree's claim saying her husband had died of a heart attack, which cannot be termed as employment injury. It also produced a certificate by a senior state medical commissioner which stated that Bharguram died a natural death and that there was no involvement of stress or strain at work. The judges, though, called this "a cryptic opinion".

The judges said it was an "unfortunate case of a widow having to knock the doors of the high court to recover an insurance claim'' from ESIC. They relied on a Punjab and Haryana high court judgment on the presumption of death as an accident in the absence of evidence to the contrary. They also cited a Madras High Court judgment, which ruled that the objective of the Employees' State Insurance Act, 1948, is to provide certain benefits to employees or dependents in case of sickness, maternity and employment injury. They, therefore, concluded that Mahadik's "death happened only during course of employment". The bench set aside ESIC's communication rejecting the widow's claim and directed it to pay her eligible benefits in four weeks.

Article referred: http://m.timesofindia.com/city/mumbai/Employees-State-Insurance-Scheme-claim-valid-in-natural-death-at-workplace-HC/articleshow/22380042.cms

Comments

Most viewed this month

Court approached in the early stages of arbitration will prevail in all other subsequent proceedings

In National Highway Authority of India v. Hindustan Steelworks Construction Limited, the Hon'ble Delhi High Court opined that once the parties have approached a certain court for relief under Act at earlier stages of disputes then it is same court that, parties must return to for all other subsequent proceedings. Language of Section 42 of Act is categorical and brooks no exception. In fact, the language used has the effect of jurisdiction of all courts since it states that once an application has been made in Part I of the Act then ―that Court alone shall have jurisdiction over arbitral proceedings and all subsequent applications arising out of that agreement and arbitral proceedings shall be made in that Court and in no other Court. Court holds that NHAI in present case cannot take advantage of Section 14 of the Limitation Act, 1963 for explaining inordinate delay in filing present petition under Section 34 of this Act in this Court.

No Rebate For Stamp Duty Paid In Another State - Bombay HC

A three judge bench of the Hon'ble Bombay High Court (Bombay HC) in a recent judgment in the matter of Chief Controlling Revenue Authority, Maharashtra State, Pune and Superintendent of Stamp (Headquarters), Mumbai v Reliance Industries Limited, Mumbai and Reliance Petroleum Limited, Gujarat1 has held that orders in case of a scheme of arrangement under Section 391 to 394 of the Companies Act, 1956 (Act) involving different High Courts in multiple states, are separate instruments in themselves. Accordingly, stamp duty would be payable on all the orders (and consequently, all the states) without the benefit of remission, rebate or set-off.

The recovery of vehicles by the financier not an offence - SC

Special Leave Petition (Crl.) No. 8907  of 2009 Anup Sarmah (Petitioner) Vs Bhola Nath Sharma & Ors.(Respondents) The petitioner submitted that  respondents-financer had forcibly taken away the vehicle financed by them and  illegally deprived the petitioner from its lawful possession  and  thus,  committed  a crime. The complaint filed by the petitioner had been  entertained  by  the Judicial Magistrate (Ist Class), Gauhati (Assam) in Complaint Case  No.  608 of 2009, even directing the interim custody of the vehicle (Maruti  Zen)  be given to the petitioner vide order dated  17.3.2009.  The respondent on approaching the Guwahati High  Court against this order, the hon'ble court squashed the criminal  proceedings  pending   before  the  learned Magistrate. After hearing both sides, the Hon'ble Supreme Court decided on 30th...