News Desk, Amar Ujala, New Delhi

Published by: Amit Mandal
Updated Saturday, 15 January 2022 06:18 PM IST

Summary

The Supreme Court held that the deceased was acting as an assistant rather than a cleaner, which was completely absurd.

Listen to the news

The Supreme Court has quashed the Rajasthan High Court’s order denying insurance cover to an assistant. The court ruled that the order was completely unnecessary. The bench comprising Justices Hemant Gupta and V Ramasubramaniam observed that there were no clear boundaries regarding the duties of assistants and sweepers. We heard counsel for the parties and found that the employer-appointed cleaner or assistant were engaged in two different duties and the High Court allowed the appeal on the argument that none of the helpers were covered by the insurance policy.

The Rajasthan High Court quashed the decision
The apex court said the high court had ruled that the deceased was believed to be an aide. Given the lack of a clear boundary for the duties of the assistant or cleaner and the fact that the helper and cleaner are interchangeable, it is completely unfair to assume that the deceased is acting as an assistant rather than a cleaner. The apex court is hearing an appeal filed by the Rajasthan High Court against the insurance company’s appeal under Section 30 of the Employees’ Compensation Act, 1923.

The owner hired Tej Singh, who died in the case, as an assistant, who died when mud fell around a well on a borewell vehicle. The petition was submitted to the Staff Commissioner under the Act for grant of compensation. The commissioner approved Rs 3,27,555, including Rs 2,500 for the funeral.

Range

The Supreme Court has quashed the Rajasthan High Court’s order denying insurance cover to an assistant. The court ruled that the order was completely unnecessary. The bench comprising Justices Hemant Gupta and V Ramasubramaniam observed that there were no clear boundaries regarding the duties of assistants and sweepers. We heard counsel for the parties and found that the employer-appointed cleaner or assistant were engaged in two different duties and the High Court allowed the appeal on the argument that none of the helpers were covered by the insurance policy.

The Rajasthan High Court quashed the decision

The apex court said the high court had ruled that the deceased was believed to be an aide. Given the lack of a clear boundary for the duties of the assistant or cleaner and the fact that the helper and cleaner are interchangeable, it is completely unfair to assume that the deceased is acting as an assistant rather than a cleaner. The apex court is hearing an appeal filed by the Rajasthan High Court against the insurance company’s appeal under Section 30 of the Employees’ Compensation Act, 1923.

The owner hired Tej Singh, who died in the case, as an assistant, who died when mud fell around a well on a borewell vehicle. The petition was submitted to the Staff Commissioner under the Act for grant of compensation. The commissioner approved Rs 3,27,555, including Rs 2,500 for the funeral.

.



Source link

Write A Comment