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

Valuation Report of Jewellery once made is effective for Four Assessment Years

The division Bench of the Delhi High Court in Pr.Commissioner of Wealth Tax vs. Raghu Hari Dalmia held that a valuation report made by a registered valuer once adopted shall be in effect for four assessment years unless an event has occurred whereby the value is increased or decreased. The High Court made it clear that the event of “search” under Section 132 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 cannot compel the assessee to undertake a fresh valuation.

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...

Mere Agreement To Sell The Leased Property To Tenant Would Not Terminate Landlord-Tenant Relationship

In CIVIL APPEAL Nos. 1237­1238 OF 2019, Dr. H.K. Sharma vs Shri Ram Lal, the tenant had objected against the eviction suit filed by the landlord, claiming that the landlord-tenant relationship between them had ceased to exist by virtue of an agreement for sale entered between them and that he has already paid some money in advance based on the agreement. The tenant contented as the landlord-tenant relationship did not exist, the landlord cannot evict him. The matter went through various forums and finally landed before the Supreme Court in appeal. The Supreme Court referring to the judgment in Shah Mathuradas Maganlal & Co. vs. Nagappa Shankarappa Malage & Ors., held that in the instant case the lease agreement included no clauses on the fate of the tenancy. A fortiori, the parties did not intend to surrender the tenancy rights despite entering into an agreement of sale of the tenanted property. In other words, if the parties really intended to surrender their tenancy ...