Q1] Explain the concept of social security. what is social Assistance and social insurance.

differentiate between social assistance and social insurance. Explain what is tripartism and
which acts related to social security mention the concept of tripartism. how is ESI and EPF
acts different from others social security legislation- tripartite and bipartite e.g. Maternity
benefits Act gratuity ACT, MCA.
ANSWER: Social security refers to a range of government programs designed to provide financial support
and assistance to individuals during periods of unemployment, disability, old age, or other instances
where they are unable to earn a livelihood. These programs aim to ensure a basic standard of living and
protect citizens from economic hardships.

Two primary mechanisms of social security are social insurance and social assistance.

Social Insurance: This is a contributory system where individuals, often along with their employers, make
regular payments into a fund during their working years. Benefits are then provided based on these
contributions when specific conditions are met, such as retirement, disability, or unemployment. The
principle behind social insurance is risk pooling, where the collective contributions are used to support
members facing certain life events. Programs like public health insurance, social security pensions, and
unemployment insurance are typical examples of social insurance

Social Assistance: In contrast, social assistance is a non-contributory system designed to support

individuals and families in need, regardless of their prior contributions. These programs are typically
funded through general taxation and are aimed at providing a safety net for the most vulnerable
populations, such as those with low income, disabilities, or facing unexpected hardships. Eligibility for
social assistance is usually determined through means testing, assessing the financial situation of
applicants to ensure aid reaches those who need it most

Key Differences Between Social Insurance and Social Assistance:

1. Funding Mechanism:
o Social Insurance: Funded by contributions from employees, employers, and sometimes
the government.
o Social Assistance: Funded entirely through government revenues, primarily taxation.
2. Eligibility Criteria:
o Social Insurance: Eligibility is based on prior contributions and specific qualifying events
(e.g., reaching retirement age, becoming unemployed).
o Social Assistance: Eligibility is based on need, often determined through means testing,
without regard to prior contributions.
3. Nature of Benefits:
o Social Insurance: Benefits are typically proportional to the contributions made; higher
contributions can lead to higher benefits.
o Social Assistance: Benefits are based on the recipient's current financial need, aiming to
provide a minimum standard of living.
4. Purpose:
o Social Insurance: Aims to protect individuals from income loss due to specific life events
by pooling risks among contributors.

1
 o Social Assistance: Aims to alleviate poverty and provide support to those in immediate
need, ensuring basic living standards.
Tripartism is a collaborative framework in which three primary parties—governments, employers, and
workers—jointly participate in the formulation and implementation of labor and social policies. This
model emphasizes social dialogue, aiming to achieve consensus and promote harmonious industrial
relations by ensuring that the interests of all stakeholders are considered.

The International Labor Organization (ILO) is a notable example of an institution founded on tripartite
principles, integrating representatives from governments, employers, and workers into its decision-
making processes.

In India, the concept of tripartism is embedded within various social security legislations, reflecting the
country's commitment to inclusive policy development. Key acts that incorporate tripartite mechanisms
include:

1. Employees' State Insurance Act, 1948: This act led to the establishment of the Employees' State
Insurance Corporation (ESIC), which administers health-related benefits for workers. The ESIC
operates under a tripartite board comprising representatives from the government, employers,
and employees, ensuring that diverse perspectives are integrated into its governance.

2. Employees' Provident Fund & Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952: This legislation governs the
Employees' Provident Fund Organization (EPFO), responsible for managing retirement benefits
for workers. The EPFO's administrative structure includes tripartite forums, facilitating
collaborative decision-making among the three stakeholder groups.

3. Code on Social Security, 2020: A more recent consolidation of various social security laws, this
code emphasizes the role of tripartite bodies in overseeing and implementing social security
schemes. For instance, it allows state governments to establish Employees' State Insurance
Societies with governing bodies that include representatives from all three parties, ensuring
balanced and inclusive governance.

The Employees' State Insurance (ESI) Act, 1948, and the Employees' Provident Fund (EPF) &
Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952, are distinguished from other social security legislations in India, such
as the Maternity Benefit Act, 1961, and the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972, primarily by their governance
structures and funding mechanisms.

1. Governance Structures: Tripartite vs. Bipartite

 ESI and EPF Acts: These acts are characterized by tripartite governance, involving representation
from three key stakeholders: the government, employers, and employees. This structure
facilitates collaborative decision-making and ensures that the interests of all parties are
considered in the administration of social security benefits.

o Employees' State Insurance Act, 1948: The Employees' State Insurance Corporation
(ESIC), established under this act, operates under a tripartite board comprising
representatives from the government, employers, and employees. This inclusive
representation ensures that diverse perspectives are integrated into its governance.

2
 o Employees' Provident Fund & Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952: Similarly, the
Employees' Provident Fund Organization (EPFO), responsible for managing retirement
benefits for workers, includes tripartite forums in its administrative structure, facilitating
collaborative decision-making among the three stakeholder groups.

 Maternity Benefit Act, 1961, and Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972: These legislations typically
operate under bipartite arrangements, primarily involving employers and employees. The
government's role is more regulatory, setting the legal framework and ensuring compliance,
rather than participating directly in the administration or decision-making processes.

2. Funding Mechanisms: Contributory vs. Non-Contributory

 ESI and EPF Acts: Both acts are contributory schemes, meaning that they are funded through
contributions from both employers and employees.

o Employees' State Insurance Act, 1948: This act mandates contributions from both
employers and employees to provide medical benefits, maternity benefits, disability
benefits, and other related services.

o Employees' Provident Fund & Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952: Under this act, both
employers and employees contribute to the provident fund, which serves as a
retirement benefit for employees.

 Maternity Benefit Act, 1961, and Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972: These acts are non-
contributory from the employee's perspective. The financial obligations, such as maternity
benefits and gratuity payments, are borne solely by the employer, without requiring direct
contributions from employees.

3. Scope and Nature of Benefits

 ESI and EPF Acts: These legislations provide a broad range of social security benefits, including
health insurance, medical care, sickness benefits, and retirement savings, aiming to offer
comprehensive social security coverage to employees.

 Maternity Benefit Act, 1961, and Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972: These acts focus on specific
contingencies. The Maternity Benefit Act provides paid leave and related benefits to women
employees during maternity, while the Payment of Gratuity Act ensures a lump-sum payment to
employees upon termination of employment after a certain period of service.

In summary, the ESI and EPF Acts are distinguished by their tripartite governance structures and
contributory funding mechanisms, involving active participation and financial contributions from the
government, employers, and employees. In contrast, legislations like the Maternity Benefit Act and the
Payment of Gratuity Act operate under bipartite arrangements, with benefits funded solely by employers
and the government's role confined to regulation and enforcement.

3
Q2] What are the various benefits provided under the maternity benefit act? Discuss with help of
various judicial decision. Discuss the applicability of ESI and Maternity Benefit ACT.

ANSWER: The Maternity Benefit Act, 1961, is a pivotal legislation in India designed to protect the
employment rights of women during maternity and to ensure they receive adequate benefits during this
period. The Act applies to establishments employing ten or more persons, including factories, mines,
plantations, and government establishments.

Key Benefits Under the Maternity Benefit Act:

1. Maternity Leave: Eligible women are entitled to 26 weeks of paid maternity leave for their first
and second children, with up to eight weeks permissible before the expected delivery date. For
the third child and subsequent children, the leave entitlement is 12 weeks.

2. Maternity Leave for Adoptive and Commissioning Mothers: The Act provides 12 weeks of
maternity leave to mothers adopting a child below the age of three months and to
commissioning mothers (biological mothers using a surrogate).

3. Medical Bonus: In addition to paid leave, the Act mandates a medical bonus for women not
provided with pre-natal confinement and post-natal care by the employer free of charge.

4. Nursing Breaks: Post-return to work, women are entitled to two nursing breaks daily until the
child attains 15 months of age.

5. Crèche Facility: Establishments with 50 or more employees are required to provide crèche
facilities, allowing women to visit the crèche four times during the day.

Judicial Interpretations Enhancing the Act:

 Daily Wage Workers: In Glem Brook Estate v. Plantation Office (2012), it was held that daily wage
workers are entitled to maternity benefits under the Act, emphasizing that the nature of
employment does not exclude women from these benefits.
 Contractual Employees: The Central Administrative Tribunal in Anuradha Arya v. Govt. Girl Sr.
School (2017) ruled that contractual employees cannot be denied maternity benefits, reinforcing
that employment terms should not deprive women of their maternity rights.
Applicability of ESI and Maternity Benefit Act:
The Employees' State Insurance (ESI) Act, 1948, provides for cash benefits during sickness, maternity,
and employment injury, among other things. The maternity benefits under the ESI Act are available to
insured women earning wages up to ₹21,000 and who have contributed for at least 70 days in the
preceding two contribution periods.
When both the ESI Act and the Maternity Benefit Act are applicable, the provisions of the ESI Act take
precedence. This means that if a woman is covered under the ESI scheme, she will receive maternity
benefits as per the ESI Act, and the employer is not liable to provide benefits under the Maternity
Benefit Act. However, for women not covered under the ESI Act, the Maternity Benefit Act ensures they
receive the necessary maternity [Link] summary, both the Maternity Benefit Act and the ESI Act aim
to provide comprehensive maternity benefits to women in India, with their applicability determined by
factors such as the nature of employment, wage limits, and coverage under the ESI scheme.

4
Q3] Explain the phrase “arising out of and during the course of employment under section 3 of the
employee compensation Act. Explain the doctrine of notional extension of time and place along with
the doctrine of added period. How far is employer liable to compensate an employee under the
enactment.
ANSWER: Under Section 3 of the Employee's Compensation Act, 1923, an employer is obligated to
compensate an employee for personal injuries resulting from accidents that both "arise out of" and
occur "in the course of" employment. This means there must be a direct causal connection between the
employment and the injury, and the injury must occur while the employee is performing their duties or
engaging in activities related to their work.

Doctrine of Notional Extension of Time and Place

The doctrine of notional extension expands the scope of employer liability beyond the physical
workplace and standard working hours. It ensures that employees receive compensation for injuries
sustained in circumstances connected to their employment, even if these incidents occur outside
traditional settings or times. For example, injuries sustained during commutes or while performing job-
related tasks outside standard work hours may still be compensable under this doctrine. The doctrine of
notional extension is a legal principle that broadens the scope of an employer's liability beyond the
physical confines of the workplace and standard working hours. This doctrine ensures that employees
receive compensation for injuries sustained in circumstances connected to their employment, even if
these incidents occur outside traditional work settings or times.

Key Elements of the Doctrine:

1. Accident Occurrence: An unforeseen incident leading to injury must have occurred.
2. Personal Injury: The employee must have suffered harm or injury.
3. Arising Out of Employment: There must be a causal connection between the injury and the
duties or conditions of the work performed.
4. In the Course of Employment: The injury should occur during activities related to the
employee's work, even if outside standard work hours or locations.
Judicial Interpretations and Applications:
Courts have applied the doctrine in various scenarios to determine employer liability:
 Commuting Accidents: In TNCS Corporation Limited v. S. Poomalai, an employee died in a
communal riot while commuting to work. The court extended the employer's premises
notionally and held the corporation liable for compensation.

 On-Site Incidents: In Leela Bai v. Seema Chauhan, a bus driver died after falling from the top of a
bus while having a meal. The Supreme Court considered this incident as arising in the course of
employment, applying the doctrine of notional extension.

Exceptions to the Doctrine:

The doctrine does not apply in certain situations, including:
 Injuries resulting in disabilities lasting less than three days.
 Accidents occurring due to the employee's intoxication.
 Injuries sustained from willful disobedience of safety protocols.
 Incidents where the employee removes or disregards safety equipment.

5
  Accidents occurring in public areas unrelated to employment duties.

Doctrine of Added Period

The doctrine of added period refers to situations where an employee contracts an occupational disease
after ceasing employment. Under Section 3(2) of the Act, if it is proven that the disease arose out of and
in the course of employment, the contracting of such disease is deemed to be an injury by accident
within the meaning of this section, making the employer liable for compensation.

Extent of Employer's Liability

An employer's liability to compensate under the Act includes:
 Occupational Diseases: If an employee contracts a disease specified in Schedule III of the Act,
peculiar to their employment, it is deemed an injury by accident, obligating the employer to
compensate.

 Personal Injuries: Employers are liable for injuries caused by accidents arising out of and in the
course of employment, except in cases where the injury does not result in total or partial
disablement exceeding three days, or if the injury is due to the employee's intoxication, willful
disobedience of safety rules, or removal/disregard of safety devices.

In summary, the Employee's Compensation Act, 1923, mandates that employers compensate employees
for injuries or diseases arising out of and during employment, with doctrines like notional extension and
added period broadening the scope of compensable circumstances.

6
Q4] What is the employer’s liability under employee’s compensation ACT ,1923.

ANSWER: The Employees' Compensation Act of 1923, originally known as the Workmen's Compensation
Act, is a pivotal Indian legislation designed to provide financial protection to workers who suffer injuries,
disabilities, or death due to workplace accidents or occupational diseases. Enacted on March 5, 1923,
and enforced from July 1, 1924, the Act ensures that employers are held accountable for compensating
affected employees or their dependents, thereby promoting a safer working environment. Under the
Employees' Compensation Act, 1923, employers in India are mandated to provide compensation to
employees who suffer personal injuries due to accidents arising out of and during the course of their
employment. This obligation encompasses various scenarios, including specific occupational diseases
listed in Schedule III of the Act.

Employer's Liability for Compensation:

1. Personal Injury by Accident: Employers are responsible for compensating employees who sustain
personal injuries caused by accidents that occur out of and in the course of their employment.

2. Occupational Diseases: If an employee contracts a disease specific to their occupation, as

outlined in Schedule III of the Act, it is treated as an injury by accident, making the employer
liable for compensation.

Exceptions to Employer's Liability:

Employers are not liable to pay compensation in the following circumstances:
 Minor Injuries: Injuries that do not result in total or partial disablement for more than three
days.
 Injuries Attributable to Employee Misconduct: Injuries not resulting in death or permanent total
disablement, caused by accidents directly attributable to:
o The employee being under the influence of alcohol or drugs at the time of the accident.
o Willful disobedience of explicit safety orders or rules by the employee.
o Willful removal or disregard by the employee of safety guards or devices provided for
their protection.

Amount of Compensation:
The Act specifies the compensation amounts based on the severity of the injury:
 In Case of Death: An amount equal to 50% of the deceased employee's monthly wages
multiplied by a relevant factor, or ₹1,20,000, whichever is higher.
 Permanent Total Disablement: An amount equal to 60% of the injured employee's monthly
wages multiplied by a relevant factor, or ₹1,20,000, whichever is higher.

Reporting Obligations:
Employers are required to report any accidents resulting in death or serious bodily injury to the
Commissioner within seven days, detailing the circumstances of the incident.

Penalties for Non-Compliance:

7
Failure to adhere to the provisions of the Act, such as not maintaining a notice-book, not sending
required reports, or not informing employees of their rights to compensation, can result in fines ranging
from ₹50,000 to ₹1,00,000.

In summary, the Employees' Compensation Act, 1923, ensures that employers are held accountable for
compensating employees who suffer injuries or occupational diseases arising out of and during their
employment, while also outlining specific exceptions and penalties to enforce compliance.