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

Inherited property of childless hindu woman devolve onto heirs of her parents

In Tarabai Dagdu Nitanware vs Narayan Keru Nitanware, quashing an order passed by a joint civil judge junior division, Pune, the Bombay High Court has held that under Section 15 of the Hindu Succession Act, any property inherited by a female Hindu from her father or mother, will devolve upon the heirs of her father/mother, if she dies without any children of her own, and not upon her husband. Justice Shalini Phansalkar Joshi was hearing a writ petition filed by relatives of one Sundarabai, who died issueless more than 45 years ago on June 18, 1962. Article referred:http://www.livelaw.in/property-inherited-female-hindu-parents-shall-devolve-upon-heirs-father-not-husband-dies-childless-bombay-hc-read-judgment/

'Seize assets to pay damages to accident victim'

Her story might be an inspiration for the physically challenged but justice has remained elusive for her. In 2008, a bus accident left research engineer S Thenmozhi, 30, paraplegic. In April 2013, the motor accident claims tribunal directed the Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation (TNSTC) to provide her a compensation of 57.9 lakh. However, TNSTC refused to budge and on Tuesday a city court ordered attaching of movable assets of the transport corporation. Thenmozhi was employed in C-DOT, a telecom technology development centre in Bangalore. On July 21, 2008, she was coming to Chennai in a private bus. Around 2am, the bus had a flat tyre and the driver parked it on the left side of the road near Pallikonda in Vellore district on the Bangalore-Chennai highway. While the tyre was being changed, a TNSTC bus of Dharmapuri division hit the stationary bus. The rear part of the bus was smashed and passengers were injured. Thenmozhi who had a seat at the back of the bus suffered...

Mumbai ITAT rules income of offshore discretionary trust is subject to tax in India

The Mumbai Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) has recently determined the following issue in the affirmative in the case of Manoj Dhupelia: Should the income of an offshore discretionary trust be subject to tax in India, if no distributions have been made to beneficiaries in India? The question arose from appeals filed by individual beneficiaries in relation to a Lichtenstein-based trust, the Ambrunova Trust and Merlyn Management SA (the Trust) with the ITAT. It is important to note that the individuals in this case were amongst those first identified by the Government of India (GOI) as holding undeclared bank accounts in Lichtenstein. The ITAT ruling raises the following issues: Taxation of Trust Corpus: ITAT classified the corpus of the trust as "undisclosed income" and declared it taxable in the hands of the beneficiaries. Taxation of Undistributed Income: ITAT refused to draw a distinction between the corpus and undistributed income from the trust and declared i...