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

Amendment of plaint under Order VI Rule 17 of the CPC explained

Cause Title :  Ganesh Prasad vs Rajeshwar Prasad, SLP (C) NO. 28377 OF 2018, Supreme Court Of India Date of Judgment/Order : 14/3/2023 Corum : J. B. Pardiwala, J. Citied:  Revajeetu Builders and Developers v. Narayanaswamy & Sons and Others reported in (2009) 10 SCC 84 North Eastern Railway Administration, Gorakhpur v. Bhagwan Das reported in (2008) 8 SCC 511 P.A. Jayalakshmi v. H. Saradha and Others reported in (2009) 14 SCC 525 B.K. Narayana Pillai v. Parameswaran Pillai and Another reported in (2000) 1 SCC 712 A.K. Gupta and Sons Ltd. v. Damodar Valley Corporation reported in AIR 1967 SC 96 Life Insurance Corporation of India v. Sanjeev Builders Private Limited and Another, Civil Appeal No. 5909 of 2022 dated 01.09.2022 Firm Sriniwas Ram Kumar v. Mahabir Prasad and Others reported in AIR 1951 SC 177 G. Nagamma and Another v. Siromanamma and Another reported in (1996) 2 SCC 25 Praful Manohar Rele v. Krishnabai Narayan Ghosalkar and Others reported in (2014...

Interim order staying the operation of an impugned order vs quashment of an impugned order

In Deific Abode LLP vs Union of India & Ors., while discussing on the issue of interim order staying the operation of an impugned order and the quashment of an impugned order, the Calcutta High Court observed that :- These salient principles emerge: i. As per the law laid down in Shree Chamundi Mopeds Ltd (supra) by the Supreme Court, the effect of an interim order staying the operation of an impugned order and the quashment of an impugned order are considerably different from one another. While the former merely ensures that the order impugned would not be operative from the date of the passing of the order of stay, without annihilating the said impugned order from existence, the latter ensures that such quashment results in the restoration of the position as it stood on the date the impugned order was passed, with the impugned order ceasing to exist in the eyes of the law. ii. Quashment of such impugned order would revive the appeal before the appellate authority and would be con...

Ruling on applicability of threshold limit for withholding obligation in relation to sale of immovable property

In Vinod Soni and others (Taxpayer) v. ITO, the issue before the Delhi Income Tax Appellate Tribunal was whether any withholding obligation triggers on the joint buyers if the cost of the immoveable property is more than specified limit of INR5M but the share of each co-owner is less than that value. Income tax laws cast an obligation on the buyer to withhold tax on payment to seller of consideration for transfer of immoveable property if value of consideration exceeds INR5M. The Tribunal held that in a case of joint acquisition of an immovable property by various co-owners, the threshold limit of withholding obligation (i.e. INR5M) is applicable with reference to share of each co-owner and not with reference to consideration of entire property. Accordingly, the Tribunal deleted tax withholding demand raised on co-owners by the Tax Authority. Article referred: https://www.ey.com/Publication/vwLUAssets/delhitrib/%24FILE/delhitrib.pdf