Esi Maternity Benefit

Hello everyone,

Can anyone tell me the solution for my query? My company comes under ESI and PF benefits. Our office maid took maternity leave for 3 months after delivery, but during her leave, she sent her mother in her place instead. The company paid the salary to her mother for the next 3 months in the name of the maid and deducted ESI accordingly. However, now when the maid asked the ESI hospital to pay her the maternity benefit, they refused as her ESI has been deducted for 3 months in the records. What should the company do for her so that she can receive her ESI benefits for the 3 months? The company cannot provide her with the pay as it has already been paid to her mother.

The company has made a blunder by not offering the mother a new appointment for at least three months and then deducting ESI from her salary. Therefore, the company must find a solution. The only viable solution is for the company to provide maternity benefits to the employee. Given that the company's actions constitute misrepresentation and falsification, the only way forward is to acknowledge it and pay the maid three months' salary or face the consequences for falsification and misrepresentation.

Madhu.T.K

Dear Sir(s),

This is a serious case as reported. The company that engaged the mother of the insured woman in her name and continued employment for 3 long months, in my opinion, is also responsible for wrong entries in the attendance and wage records. Such actions are liable for prosecution under Section 84 of the ESI Act, 1948. Perhaps such actions are also punishable under Section 416 of the Indian Penal Code or under the Payment of Wages Act.

ESIC has rightly rejected the claim of the insured woman under Rule 56 of the ESI (Central) Rules, 1950. There appears to be no solution to the issue as far as ESI is concerned. If the insured woman continues to raise the issue before ESIC, there is a possibility that they may examine the filing of a prosecution case against both the employee and the employer for such a false claim.

Dear Harsh Kumar Ji,

With due respect to you, sir, may I ask how the Corporation may file a prosecution against the employee? According to me, there is no fault on the part of the employee.

Dear Korgaonkarji,

Thanks for raising the issue through your remarks as above. In this connection, I may submit that the Maternity Benefit Claim Form No. 19 as laid down under ESI (General) Regulations, 1950 includes a certificate from the claimant of the benefit that she has ceased to work for remuneration during the period of claim. Therefore, once such a claim is made with the appropriate branch office of ESIC, in my opinion, furnishing of wrong information and false declaration is complete regardless of whether the actual benefit is paid or not.

Further, it is to be seen in what manner the said insured woman or the said establishment will prove before the authorities that the entries made in the Attendance and Wages records with reference to the said insured woman are wrong and erroneous. At present, due to the online procedure, the payment of contributions, submission of declaration forms, etc., are being made online by the employers. I am doubtful if the employer or the said insured woman will be able to prove their case of wrong/erroneous entries in said records. In addition, the question will also arise whether a similar type of error or mistake has been made concerning returns or payments of contributions, etc., in respect of said insured women when generating the records of EPF or under the Factories Act, etc., as may be applicable in the said establishment. In the light of the above position, I have written my opinion about the possibilities of the prosecution of the said insured woman.

In this era of RTI and verification of complaint systems in public offices, I am doubtful if any official will agree and be convinced of the genuineness of the story as narrated by the initiator of this thread.

Dear Harsh Kumar ji,

Thanks for your active participation in the discussion.

According to me, the IW proceeded on maternity leave. She claimed maternity leave benefit from ESIC, but ESIC refused to pay her on the grounds that her employer had paid contributions in her account during the period of her absence from duty on account of maternity. It is a BLUNDER BY THE EMPLOYER. The employee has no fault here.

The employee (IW) has given a substitute during her absence. It is a fault of the employer not to take the substitute person on the roll as leave vacancy. It is a fault of the employer not enrolling her (substituted person) as IW. It is a fault of the employer to show the attendance of and salary earned by the substituted person in the account of the IW who has proceeded on maternity leave.

The IW is nowhere at fault according to me. Even if the employer has obtained the signatures of IW on the salary sheet, the employer is at fault. The IW can lead the evidence that she was on leave and the substitute person was engaged by the employer.

Therefore, I feel there is no possibility of prosecuting the IW.

Dear Korgaonkarji,

I feel that the views as expressed by you above are very relevant and proper in the situation, and I fully agree with them.

Thank you.

How can the corporation pay benefits (whether maternity or sickness) if the employee has already received the same from the employer? In the records, if you see that she has been paid wages, there is no way she can again claim it from the corporation.

Madhu.T.K

Dear Madhu ji,

I am in the shoes of IW. I have proceeded on Maternity leave. Being IW, it is my right to get maternity leave benefits under the ESI. If my employer made a blunder, why should I suffer or be deprived of my legitimate right? Whether the Corporation takes action against my employer or not, it is not my concern. My concern is that I should be paid maternity leave and other benefits as admissible under the law. Hope I am right in this.

As per ESI records, she has already collected the wages from the employer. Hence, the Corporation is under no liability to pay benefits. As already pointed out by me in the 1st reply to the thread, since the employee is innocent and the employer is wrong, the employer should pay 3 months' salary to her and close it. I know that the worker need not be affected by the wrongful act of the employer, which is why I categorically said that the company should take ownership and pay the amount. ESIC can only go by whatever is available in the records. When the records (of the employer himself) show that she was paid a salary by him, how can the Corporation pay it.

Madhu.T.K