Page 133 - DCOM207_LABOUR_LAWS
P. 133

Labour Laws




                    Notes          (ii)   If the employer or any of the several employers or his manager has knowledge of the
                                       accident from any other source at or about the time when it occurred.
                                       !

                                     Caution Every notice shall be served upon the employer. It may be served by delivering it
                                     at or sending it by registered post and addressed to the residence or any of office or place
                                     of business of the person on whom it is to be served. Where a workman has given a notice
                                     of accident he should submit himself for medical examination if required by the employer.
                                     And such medical examination shall take place within 3 days from the date of service of the
                                     notice of accident to the employer refusal to submit himself for medical examination will
                                     result in the suspension of the right of the workman for compensation during the period
                                     of refusal During the period of suspension of the right no compensation shall be paid to
                                     the workman.

                                     


                                      Caselet   Sarda Gum & Chemicals vs. Union of India & Ors. (2012)
                                               LLR 416
                                          he petitioner  industrial unit was  aggrieved by the order  passed  by the regional
                                          Provident Fund Commissioner-II, Jodhpur and Appellate order passed by Employees
                                     TProvident Fund Appellate Tribunal New Delhi, holding that the petitioner Unit is
                                     covered by the EPF Act, 1952 since number of employees found at the time in the industrial
                                     unit were more than 20. The Commissioner and the Tribunal had held that the petitioner was
                                     covered by the provisions of the said Act and was liable to pay provident fund contribution
                                     in respect of such 20 workmen. It was found that out of 21 who were said to be employed
                                     in the factory of the petitioner, 8 persons were temporarily labourers employed for the
                                     purpose of carrying on the repairs of the factory building and the Court observed that it
                                     cannot be held that they were employed for the normal business of the establishment. The
                                     Court further observed that it naturally depends upon the facts of each case as to whether
                                     the so called temporary workmen are regularly employed in connection with the normal
                                     and usual course of the business or they are engaged in the performance of some work
                                     which had no relation with the normal and regular course of business of the establishment.
                                     Even if casual or temporary workers are engaged occasionally or intermittently to meet
                                     some temporary or casual work, such workmen cannot be considered to be employees for
                                     the purpose of section 1 (3)(a) of the Act. The high Court held that unless temporary or
                                     casual workers are found to be regular employees of an industrial unit, the same cannot
                                     be included to make 20 workmen of an industrial unit for the purpose of determining
                                     whether the establishment is covered under the definition in section 1 (3)(a) of the Act. The
                                     full bench decision of the court found the impugned order of the Appellate Tribunal and
                                     the Regional Provident Fund Commissioner were found to be non speaking orders and
                                     deserve to be quashed. The court set aside the orders.

                                   Source: http://www.chadha-co.com/pdfs/C&Co-Labour-Law-Update-April-May-2012.pdf

                                   Self Assessment

                                   State whether the following statements are true or false:
                                   1.   An accident alone give a workman a right to compensation.
                                   2.   Section 3(2) of the Act also recognizes that the workman employed in certain types of
                                       industries  of  occupation  risk  exposure  to  certain  occupational  disease  peculiar  to  that
                                       employment.




          128                              LOVELY PROFESSIONAL UNIVERSITY
   128   129   130   131   132   133   134   135   136   137   138