Date post: | 06-Apr-2018 |
Category: |
Documents |
Upload: | soumya-sahoo |
View: | 242 times |
Download: | 2 times |
of 15
8/2/2019 Workmen s Compensation Act 1923 196(2)
1/15
WORKMENS
COMPENSATION ACT-1923
8/2/2019 Workmen s Compensation Act 1923 196(2)
2/15
Eligibility for compensation
Part 1: Is the injured person a workman?Part 2: Did the work injury disable him for
more than 3 days?
Part 3:Did the accident arise in the course ofhis employment?
> Notional extension of employment
Part 4:Did the accident arise out of his
employment?
Situations when worker is not compensated
8/2/2019 Workmen s Compensation Act 1923 196(2)
3/15
Compensation computation
Fatal injuries{40% monthly wages of the deceased} X {relevant factor} mentionedin schedule 4
subject to a minimum of Rs 20000
Permanent / total disablement{50% monthly wages of the deceased} X {relevant factor}
Subject to minimum of Rs 24000
Permanent partial disablement> (schedule I, part II ) list of permanent partially disabling injuries
> amount of compensation payable for total disablement is calculate> then % of that as indicated by the injury in schedule I, part II is taken
Temporary disablement
25% of workmens actual wages
8/2/2019 Workmen s Compensation Act 1923 196(2)
4/15
Procedure for compensation
Notice of accident
Medical examination
Claim for compensation Registration of the compensation
agreements
Commissioner for workmenscompensation
appeal
8/2/2019 Workmen s Compensation Act 1923 196(2)
5/15
Some special cases
Jharkand high court DB: Project officer, Giddi A colliery CCL, Hazaribagh Vs.
Sanjay Prasad Chaurasia & another 2005 ILLJ 891
The workmens compensation act, 1923 Section 2(d) and 10-A
child in the mothers womb at the time of its father- workers death is
dependent. However, claim made by the child dependent after
attaining majority, is barred by limitation
8/2/2019 Workmen s Compensation Act 1923 196(2)
6/15
Kerela high court : V. Sukumaran Vs Union of India, 2005 Lab IC 2285
The workmens compensation act ,1923- section 4-Osteoarthrits
was not an occupational disease and hence the compensation
under the act was not payable. The disease must be attributable
to a specific injury arising out of and in the course ofemployment.
8/2/2019 Workmen s Compensation Act 1923 196(2)
7/15
Orissa high court: National insurance company
Ltd. Vs. Bijay Kumar Sahu2002 Lab IC ,1026
The workmens compensation act ,1923- section 4-
Powers of W.C. Commissioner to mould relief- the
W.C. Commissioner has the powers to awardcompensation for temporary disablement even though
the workman has claimed compensation for permanent
disablement.
8/2/2019 Workmen s Compensation Act 1923 196(2)
8/15
Modern Work Environment
BPO and ITES
Worksmen Compensation Act accepts owners Cab as the notional
extension of work
This Cab may be owned by the company or hired from any private
contractor
An employee who meets with any accident while in the owners cab
may be compensated under this act
As a HR personnel we should make company cab mandatory in the
interest of employees, in night shifts
This will also help in reducing the chances of litigation
8/2/2019 Workmen s Compensation Act 1923 196(2)
9/15
Working out of office premises or from home
If a person meets with an accident on the road while on his duty,
will be compensated (notional extension of work)
eg. A salesman, meets with an accident while on a journey to meet
a client will be compensated under the act
In its present form WC Act cannot cover employees working from
their home
It is difficult to prove the relationship between the injury and work in
such situations
Its better to cover employees under various medical insurances to
protect them
8/2/2019 Workmen s Compensation Act 1923 196(2)
10/15
Stress related to work
Various research have proved that stress related diseases likeHyper-tension, Ulcers, Hemorrhage and Insomnia are on increase
They also associate it with work related stress
If an employee is able to establish the relationship between his
disease and work, then he is eligible to get compensation It has to be proved on the basis of the report by a qualified doctor
under the law
As preventive measures we should try to create a work environmentto avoid unnecessary stress
Regular health check ups
8/2/2019 Workmen s Compensation Act 1923 196(2)
11/15
Section XII
The employer is made liable to pay his contractorsworkman where he employs a contractor for trade orbusiness
CASE: In state of Maharashtra Vs Mahadeo KrishnaWaghmode, [(1994) 2 LLN 829]
The Bombay High Court observed that if the ESIS
Hospital had a claim of indemnification by the contractorin respect of compensation payable to the dependants ofthe deceased, it was for the hospital to adopt appropriateproceedings.
8/2/2019 Workmen s Compensation Act 1923 196(2)
12/15
Contd
If the contractor is not a genuine contractor, and ismerely an agent of the (principal) employer, Section XIIwould not come into play and it would be only theprincipals liability.
In S. Kaloo & Sons. Vs Ofatannessa Bibi [42 CWN803(Cal)], the Calcutta High Court held that thedeceased had been employed directly under the former;and that if there was any contract, it was not a contractto do the whole or any part of the work, but merely acontract for the supply of labour at a certain rate ofwages per head.
8/2/2019 Workmen s Compensation Act 1923 196(2)
13/15
Sub-Section (1) of Section XII
In order to come within the aforesaid, the principal in thecourse of the purpose of his trade must have enteredinto a contract with the contractor and also the workwhich is the subject-matter of the contract shouldordinarily form the whole or part of the business.
In Rabia Md. Vs Agent, GIP Rly. [AIR 1929 Bom 179:(1929) ILR 53 Bom 203] the Bombay High Court heldthat the case did not fall within sub-section (1)
In Payyannur Educational Society Vs Narayani, [(1996) 3Supp LLJ 1212] the Kerala High Court rejected theappellants contention.
8/2/2019 Workmen s Compensation Act 1923 196(2)
14/15
Sub-Section (2) of Section XII
It provides that the principal employer will beentitled to be indemnified by the contractor incase the former is required to pay compensationto the contractors employees.
In Triveedhi Peerayya Vs Executive Engineer,Dam Division, N.S. Dam, Vijayapuri North
[(1988) 2 LLN 483 AP] the court observed thatthe negligence was on the part of the principalemployer and so, was not entitled to beindemnified by the contractor.
8/2/2019 Workmen s Compensation Act 1923 196(2)
15/15
Sub-Section (4) of section XII
The provisions shall not apply in any case
elsewhere than on, in, or about the
premises.
In Bhuvaneswari Rice Mill, Guntur Vs
Mannava Pullayya [AIR 1964 AP 392], the
court observed that the accident occurred
at a place where the work in question wasbeing executed.